ReviewCureus2025
Tenapanor for Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation (IBS-C): A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials Assessing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Composite Response, Durability, and Risk-of-Bias (RoB-2).
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tenapanor, a minimally absorbed inhibitor of intestinal Sodium/Hydrogen Exchanger 3 (NHE3), is approved for IBS with constipation (IBS‑C). We systematically reviewed randomized trials that used Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‑aligned weekly composite responders to consolidate the evidence on their efficacy, durability of benefit, and risk of bias. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, we searched major databases and trial registries (January 2015 - August 2025) for adult, placebo‑controlled parallel‑group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (≥12 weeks) of oral Tenapanor in IBS‑C. The primary endpoint was the FDA composite (≥30% abdominal pain reduction and ≥1 additional complete spontaneous bowel movement in the same week, sustained ≥6/12 or ≥13/26 weeks). Patient‑reported outcomes were collected via daily e‑diaries. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with RoB-2; certainty with grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE). Synthesis was narrative with supportive pooled estimates from the evidence profile. We found six studies that met our inclusion criteria: three double‑blind RCTs (one Phase 2b, two Phase 3) plus an open‑label extension and two post‑hoc pooled analyses. Across RCTs using the approved 50 mg twice‑daily dose, composite responder rates favored Tenapanor: Phase 2b 50.0% vs 23.6%; Tenapanor IBS-C Phase 3 clinical program (T3MPO)‑1 27.0% vs 18.7%; T3MPO‑2 36.5% vs 23.7% (placebo‑adjusted differences 8-26%). Durable response also favored Tenapanor (e.g., 9/12 weeks: 13.7% vs 3.3% and 18.4% vs 5.3%; 13/26 weeks: 35.5% vs 24.3%). Pooled estimates indicated a higher likelihood of response [composite relative risk (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-1.90; abdominal‑pain responder RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.17-1.49] with minimal heterogeneity. Diarrhea was the principal adverse event (≈13-16%) and the most common reason for discontinuation; serious events were uncommon. Overall risk of bias was low to some concerns; certainty of evidence was moderate. In conclusion, Tenapanor confers clinically meaningful, durable improvements in pain and bowel function for adults with IBS‑C, with predictable mechanism‑related diarrhea as the main tolerability trade‑off. Head‑to‑head trials versus other prosecretory agents and longer‑term pragmatic studies are priorities, but current evidence supports Tenapanor as a patient‑centered option within guideline‑directed care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.