Background/Aims: Prokinetic agents and neuromodulators are among the treatment options for functional dyspepsia (FD), but their comparative efficacy is unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy of mosapride controlled-release (CR) and nortriptyline in patients with FD after 4 weeks of treatment. Methods: Participants with FD were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive mosapride CR (mosapride CR 15 mg and nortriptyline placebo) or nortriptyline (mosapride CR placebo and nortriptyline 10 mg) in double-placebo, double-blinded, randomized controlled, parallel clinical study. The primary endpoint was defined as the proportion of patients with overall dyspepsia improvement after 4 weeks treatment. The secondary endpoints were changes in individual symptom scores, anxiety, depression, and quality of life. Results: One hundred nine participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility, and 54 in the mosapride CR group and 50 in the nortriptyline group were included in the modified intention-to-treat protocol. The rate of overall dyspepsia improvement was similar between groups (53.7% vs 54.0%, P = 0.976). There was no difference in the efficacy of mosapride CR and nortriptyline in a subgroup analysis by FD subtype (59.3% vs 52.5% in postprandial distress syndrome, P = 0.615; 44.4% vs 40.0% in epigastric pain syndrome, P = > 0.999; 50.0% vs 59.1% in overlap, P = 0.565; respectively). Both treatments significantly improved anxiety, depression, and quality of life from baseline. Conclusion Mosapride CR and nortriptyline showed similar efficacy in patients with FD regardless of the subtype. Both treatments could be equally helpful for improving quality of life and psychological well-being while also relieving dyspepsia.

Background/Aims: Acid-suppressive drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), are treatment options for functional dyspepsia (FD). However, the efficacy of potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) in treating FD has not yet been established. This prospective multicenter clinical trial-based study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tegoprazan as a P-CAB treatment in patients with FD. Methods: FD was diagnosed using the Rome IV criteria. All patients received tegoprazan 50 mg once daily for 8 weeks. Dyspeptic symptoms were assessed using a dyspepsia symptom questionnaire (5-point Likert scale, Nepean Dyspepsia Index-Korean [NDI-K], and gastroesophageal reflux disease–health-related quality of life [GERD-HRQL]). The main outcome was satisfactory symptom relief rates at 8 weeks. Results: In this study, from the initial screening of 209 patients, 173 were included in the per-protocol set analysis. Satisfactory symptom relief rates at 8 and 4 weeks were 86.7% and 74.6%, respectively. In addition, the NDI-K and GERD-HRQL scores significantly improved at 8 and 4 weeks compared with the baseline scores. The efficacy of tegoprazan was not influenced by the FD subtype or Helicobacter pylori status. In patients with overlapping FD and GERD, there was a greater improvement in the NDI-K and GERD-HRQL scores than in patients with FD symptoms only. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred during this study. Conclusion Tegoprazan (50 mg) administered once daily provided satisfactory symptom relief for FD.

Chronic constipation is one of the most common digestive diseases encountered in clinical practice. Constipation manifests as a variety of symptoms, such as infrequent bowel movements, hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, straining at defecation, a sense of anorectal blockage during defecation, and use of digital maneuvers to assist defecation. During the diagnosis of chronic constipation, the Bristol Stool Form Scale, colonoscopy, and a digital rectal examination are useful for objective symptom evaluation and differential diagnosis of secondary constipation. Physiological tests for functional constipation have complementary roles and are recommended for patients who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives and those who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. As new evidence on the diagnosis and management of functional constipation emerged, the need to revise the previous guideline was suggested. Therefore, these evidence-based guidelines have proposed recommendations developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment options available for functional constipation. The benefits and cautions of new pharmacological agents (such as lubiprostone and linaclotide) and conventional laxatives have been described through a meta-analysis. The guidelines consist of 34 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and epidemiology of functional constipation, 9 regarding diagnoses, and 22 regarding managements. Clinicians (including primary physicians, general health professionals, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients can refer to these guidelines to make informed decisions regarding the management of functional constipation.

Background: Cytoplasmic polyadenylation element binding (CPEB) proteins are sequencespecific RNA-binding proteins that control translation via cytoplasmic polyadenylation. We previously reported that CPEB1 or CPEB4 knockdown suppresses TAK1 and SMAD signaling in an in vitro study. Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether suppression of CPEB1 or CPEB4 expression inhibits scar formation in a mice model of acute dermal wound healing. Methods: CPEB1 and CPEB4 expression levels were suppressed by siRNA treatment. Skin wounds were created by pressure-induced ulcers in mice. Images of the wound healing were obtained using a digital camera and contraction was measured by ImageJ. mRNA and protein expression was analyzed using quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction and western blotting, respectively. Results: Wound contraction was significantly decreased by pre-treatment with CPEB1 or CPEB4 siRNA compared to the control. Suppression of CPEB1 or CPEB4 expression decreased TAK1 signaling by reducing the levels of TLR4 and TNF-α, phosphorylated TAK1, p38, ERK, JNK, and NF-κB-p65. Decreased levels of phosphorylated SMAD2 and SMAD3 indicated a reduction in SMAD signaling as well. Consequently, the expression of α-SMA, fibronectin, and type I collagen decreased. Conclusion CPEB1 siRNA or CPEB4 siRNA inhibit scar formation by modulating the TAK1 and SMAD signaling pathways. Our study highlights CPEB1 and CPEB4 as potential therapeutic targets for the treatment of scar formation.