Irene Sarosiek1, Mark Van Natta2, Henry P Parkman3, Thomas Abell4, Kenneth L Koch5, Braden Kuo6, Robert J Shulman7, Gianrico Farrugia8, Madhusudan Grover9, Frank A Hamilton10, Pankaj J Pasricha11, Katherine P Yates2, Laura Miriel2, Laura Wilson2, Goro Yamada2, James Tonascia2, Richard W McCallum12. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas. Electronic address: irene.sarosiek@ttuhsc.edu. 2. Data Coordinating Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Section of Gastroenterology, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. 5. Section on Gastroenterology, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, North Carolina. 6. Massachusetts General Hospital, Digestive Health Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Baylor College of Medicine Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, Texas. 8. Section of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida. 9. Section of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 10. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland. 11. Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 12. Division of Gastroenterology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, Texas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of domperidone (DOM) for gastroparesis (GP) remains controversial and limited. We aimed to present outcomes of DOM therapy for treatment of patients participating in the multicenter National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium (GpCRC) Registries (GpR). METHODS: The GpCRC cohort consisted of patients with GP (75%) and with GP-like symptoms but with normal gastric emptying (25%). The DOM group initiated therapy during the 96 weeks of enrollment in GpR1 and GpR2. Patients who had previously taken or who were on DOM therapy at enrollment were excluded from this analysis. The control group did not use domperidone (non-DOM group) before or after enrollment. The following outcome measures were identified: change from baseline in Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index total score, with 3 subscales, plus Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Quality of Life scores. RESULTS: Overall, of 748 patients, 181 (24%) were in the DOM group, whereas 567 were in the non-DOM group. Sixty-three percent of participants had idiopathic GP. At baseline, DOM patients compared with non-DOM patients were significantly younger, had lower body mass index, non-Hispanic ethnicity, a higher annual household income, lower narcotic utilization, lower supplemental and complimentary medication use, and were more likely to have delayed gastric emptying time, as well as worse nausea and fullness scores. Compared with non-DOM patients, DOM patients experienced moderate but significantly more improvement in GP outcome measures: Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index total score (P = .003), nausea (P = .003), and fullness subscales (P =.005), upper abdominal pain score (P = .04), Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score (P = .05), and Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Quality of Life score (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing the method of pragmatic modeling to evaluate long-term treatment of GP in a large GpCRC database, DOM treatment resulted in moderately but significantly improved GP. NOTE: This project was based on data generated by 2 GpCRC Registry studies recognized under the Clinicaltrial.gov numbers: NCT00398801 and NCT01696747 symptoms compared with a group receiving standard-of-care but not DOM.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The use of domperidone (DOM) for gastroparesis (GP) remains controversial and limited. We aimed to present outcomes of DOM therapy for treatment of patients participating in the multicenter National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium (GpCRC) Registries (GpR). METHODS: The GpCRC cohort consisted of patients with GP (75%) and with GP-like symptoms but with normal gastric emptying (25%). The DOM group initiated therapy during the 96 weeks of enrollment in GpR1 and GpR2. Patients who had previously taken or who were on DOM therapy at enrollment were excluded from this analysis. The control group did not use domperidone (non-DOM group) before or after enrollment. The following outcome measures were identified: change from baseline in Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index total score, with 3 subscales, plus Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Quality of Life scores. RESULTS: Overall, of 748 patients, 181 (24%) were in the DOM group, whereas 567 were in the non-DOM group. Sixty-three percent of participants had idiopathic GP. At baseline, DOM patients compared with non-DOM patients were significantly younger, had lower body mass index, non-Hispanic ethnicity, a higher annual household income, lower narcotic utilization, lower supplemental and complimentary medication use, and were more likely to have delayed gastric emptying time, as well as worse nausea and fullness scores. Compared with non-DOM patients, DOM patients experienced moderate but significantly more improvement in GP outcome measures: Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index total score (P = .003), nausea (P = .003), and fullness subscales (P =.005), upper abdominal pain score (P = .04), Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease score (P = .05), and Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Quality of Life score (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing the method of pragmatic modeling to evaluate long-term treatment of GP in a large GpCRC database, DOM treatment resulted in moderately but significantly improved GP. NOTE: This project was based on data generated by 2 GpCRC Registry studies recognized under the Clinicaltrial.gov numbers: NCT00398801 and NCT01696747 symptoms compared with a group receiving standard-of-care but not DOM.
Authors: T L Abell; R K Bernstein; T Cutts; G Farrugia; J Forster; W L Hasler; R W McCallum; K W Olden; H P Parkman; C R Parrish; P J Pasricha; C M Prather; E E Soffer; R Twillman; A I Vinik Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Florine Berger; Selma Saâïd; Teun van Gelder; Bruno Stricker; Matthijs Becker; Patricia van den Bemt Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Michael Camilleri; Henry P Parkman; Mehnaz A Shafi; Thomas L Abell; Lauren Gerson Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Henry P Parkman; Michael R Jacobs; Anurag Mishra; Jessica A Hurdle; Priyanka Sachdeva; John P Gaughan; Evgeny Krynetskiy Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: D Silvers; M Kipnes; V Broadstone; D Patterson; E M Quigley; R McCallum; N K Leidy; C Farup; Y Liu; A Joslyn Journal: Clin Ther Date: 1998 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Thomas L Abell; Goro Yamada; Richard W McCallum; Mark L Van Natta; James Tonascia; Henry P Parkman; Kenneth L Koch; Irene Sarosiek; Gianrico Farrugia; Madhusudan Grover; William Hasler; Linda Nguyen; William Snape; Braden Kuo; Robert Shulman; Frank A Hamilton; Pankaj J Pasricha Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2019-10-04 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Michael Camilleri; Braden Kuo; Linda Nguyen; Vida M Vaughn; Jessica Petrey; Katarina Greer; Rena Yadlapati; Thomas L Abell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 12.045
Authors: Marc E Rothenberg; Shawna K B Hottinger; Nirmala Gonsalves; Glenn T Furuta; Margaret H Collins; Nicholas J Talley; Kathryn Peterson; Calies Menard-Katcher; Macie Smith; Ikuo Hirano; Robert M Genta; Mirna Chehade; Sandeep K Gupta; Jonathan M Spergel; Seema S Aceves; Evan S Dellon Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 10.793