Skip to main content
. 2017 Aug 22;113(1):105–114. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2017.230

Table 2. Efficacy results during the 12-week treatment period (ITT population)Continued.

  Placebo (N=401) Linaclotide
    72 μg (N=411) P-value OR (95% CI) 145 μg (N=411) P-value OR (95% CI)
Primary endpoint a: 12-week CSBM overall responder
b% 12-week CSBM overall responders: % of patients with ≥3 CSBMs/week and an increase of ≥1 CSBM/week (CSBM weekly responders) for ≥9 of 12 weeksc, d 4.7 13.4 <0.0001a 3.0 (1.8, 5.2) 12.4 <0.0001 2.8 (1.6, 4.9)
Secondary and additional endpoints
CSBM
 Mean CSBMs/weekd 1.0 1.8   2.0  
eChange from baseline in CSBMs/week, meand, f 0.9 1.7 <0.0001a 1.9 <0.0001
e% CSBM weekly responders for ≥3 of 4 weeks in month 1 of treatmentc 6.2 14.8 <0.0001a 2.6 (1.6, 4.2) 15.8 <0.0001 2.8 (1.7, 4.6)
e% CSBM weekly responders for ≥3 of 4 weeks in month 2 of treatmentc 9.5 18.7 0.0002a 2.2 (1.4, 3.3) 19.0 0.0002 2.2 (1.5, 3.4)
e% CSBM weekly responders for ≥3 of 4 weeks in month 3 of treatmentc 14.2 20.2 0.0342a 1.5 (1.0, 2.2) 20.0 0.0385 1.5 (1.0, 2.2)
e% CSBM weekly responders for ≥9 of 12 weeks (>1 SBM/week at BL subpopulation)c, d 7.1 17.2 0.0008a 2.7 (1.5, 4.9) 17.4 0.0009 2.7 (1.5, 5.0)
Sustained responder          
 % CSBM weekly responders for ≥9 of 12 weeks, including 3 of 4 final treatment weeksc, d 4.7 12.4 0.0001 2.8 (1.6, 4.8) 11.2 0.0010 2.5 (1.4, 4.4)
SBM
 Mean SBMs/weekd 2.7 3.9   4.1  
eChange from baseline in SBMs/week, meand, f 1.3 2.4 <0.0001a 2.6 <0.0001
Stool consistency (BSFS)
 Mean BSFS/weekd 3.0 3.6   3.7  
eChange from baseline, meand, f 1.1 1.7 <0.0001a 1.8 <0.0001
Straining
 Mean straining score (1 to 5-point ordinal scale)d 2.7 2.5   2.3  
eChange from baseline, meand, f −0.8 −1.1 <0.0001a −1.2 <0.0001
Abdominal bloating
 Mean abdominal bloating score (11-point NRS)d 4.2 3.8   3.7  
eChange from baseline, meand, f −1.1 −1.4 0.0063a −1.5 <0.0001
Abdominal discomfort
 Mean abdominal discomfort score (11-point NRS)d 3.6 3.3   3.3  
eChange from baseline, meand, f −1.1 −1.3 0.1028 −1.4 0.0056
Abdominal pain
 Mean abdominal pain score (11-point NRS)d 3.2 2.9   2.9  
 Change from baseline, meand, f −1.0 −1.2 0.0183 −1.3 0.0029
Constipation severity
 Mean constipation severity score (11-point NRS)d 3.0 2.7   2.6  
 Change from baseline, meand, f −0.6 −0.9 <0.0001 −1.0 <0.0001
Degree of relief of constipation
 % of patients at least ‘somewhat relieved’ for all 12 weeks or at least ‘considerably relieved’ for 6 of 12 weeks of treatmentc 24.2 36.0 0.0004 36.0 0.0003
Treatment satisfaction
 Mean treatment satisfaction at Week 12 (1 to 5-point ordinal scale)d 2.9 3.4 <0.0001 3.5 <0.0001
PAC-QOL—overall score
 Mean score at Week 12 (5-point scale)g 1.4 1.2   1.1  
 Change from baseline, meanf −0.7 −1.0 <0.0001 −1.0 <0.0001
Rescue medication use (bisacodyl)
 Mean percent of days during treatment 8.7 9.5   9.4  
 Change from baseline, meanf −0.5 <0.1 0.6752 0.3 0.5570

ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; BSFS, Bristol Stool Form Scale; CI, confidence interval; CSBM, complete SBM; ITT, intent to treat; MCP, multiple comparisons procedure; NRS, numerical rating scale; OR, odds ratio; PAC-QOL, Patient Assessment of Constipation—Quality of Life; SBM, spontaneous bowel movement.

a

Statistically significant under the MCP.

b

Primary endpoint: linaclotide 72 μg dose compared with placebo for 12-week CSBM overall responder evaluated under a multiple comparisons procedure (MCP); linaclotide 145 μg was evaluated for comparison purposes only and was not subjected to the MCP.

c

Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values were based on a comparison of linaclotide vs. placebo using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test controlling for SBM stratum (except for >1 SBM/week subpopulation analysis) and geographic region.

d

Means are over the 12-week treatment period.

e

Secondary endpoint: linaclotide 72 μg dose compared with placebo for the parameter specified, under the MCP; linaclotide 145 μg was evaluated for comparison purposes only and was not subjected to the MCP.

f

Changes from baseline are the least-squares means from an ANCOVA model; P values were based on a comparison of linaclotide vs. placebo using an ANCOVA model with treatment group, baseline SBM stratum, and geographic region as factors and corresponding baseline value as a covariate.

g

Composite of four 0- to 4-point subscales, using a last observation carried forward approach to missing data. Lower score indicates better outcome.