Dataset Information

Efficacy and tolerability of peg-only laxative on faecal impaction and chronic constipation in children. A controlled double blind randomized study vs a standard peg-electrolyte laxative.

ABSTRACT: PEG-based laxatives are considered today the gold standard for the treatment of constipation in children. PEG formulations differ in terms of composition of inactive ingredients which may have an impact on acceptance, compliance and adherence to treatment. We therefore compared the efficacy, tolerability, acceptance and compliance of a new PEG-only formulation compared to a reference PEG-electrolyte (PEG-EL) formulation in resolving faecal impaction and in the treatment of chronic constipation.Children aged 2-16 years with functional chronic constipation for at least 2 months were randomized to receive PEG-only 0.7 g/kg/day in 2 divided doses or 6.9 g PEG-EL 1-4 sachets according to age for 4 weeks. Children with faecal impaction were randomized to receive PEG-only 1.5/g/kg in 2 divided doses until resolution or for 6 days or PEG-EL with an initial dose of 4 sachets and increasing 2 sachets a day until resolution or for 7 days.Ninety-six children were randomized into the study. Five patients withdrew consent before starting treatment. Three children discontinued treatment for refusal due to bad taste of the product (1 PEG-only, 2 PEG-EL); 1 (PEG-EL) for an adverse effect (abdominal pain). Intent-to-treat analysis was carried out in 49 children in the PEG-only group and 42 in the PEG-EL group.No significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups at baseline.Adequate relief of constipation in terms of normalized frequency and painless defecation of soft stools was achieved in all patients in both groups. The number of stools/week was 9.2 ± 3.2 (mean ± SD) in the PEG-only group and 7.8 ± 2.4 in the PEG-EL group (p = 0.025); the number of days with stool was 22.4 ± 5.1 in the PEG-only group and 19.6 ± 7.2 in the PEG-EL group (p = 0.034).In the PEG-only group faecaloma resolution was observed in 5 children on the second day and in 2 children on the third day, while in the PEG-EL group it was observed in 2 children on the second day, in 3 children on the third day and in 1 child on the fifth day.Only 2 patients reported mild treatment-related adverse events: 1 child in the PEG-only group had diarrhoea and vomiting and 1 child in the PEG-EL group had abdominal pain requiring treatment discontinuation. The PEG-only preparation was better tolerated as shown by the lower frequency of nausea than in the PEG-EL group.In the PEG-only group, 96% of patients did not demonstrate any difficulties associated with treatment, as compared with 52% of patients in the PEG-EL group (p < 0.001). Also, the PEG-only formulation taste was better than that of PEG-EL (p < 0.001). The difference between the percentage of subjects who took > 80% of the prescribed dose was in favour of the PEG-only group (98% vs. 88%), though it did not reach a conventional statistical level (p = 0.062).PEG-only was better tolerated and accepted than PEG-EL in children with chronic constipation. At the higher PEG doses recommended by the manufactures children in the PEG-only group had higher and more regular soft stool frequency than PEG-EL.

SUBMITTER: Savino F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3511173 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and tolerability of peg-only laxative on faecal impaction and chronic constipation in children. A controlled double blind randomized study vs a standard peg-electrolyte laxative.

Savino Francesco F Viola Serena S Erasmo Maiullari M Di Nardo Giovanni G Oliva Salvatore S Cucchiara Salvatore S

BMC pediatrics 20121115

<h4>Background</h4>PEG-based laxatives are considered today the gold standard for the treatment of constipation in children. PEG formulations differ in terms of composition of inactive ingredients which may have an impact on acceptance, compliance and adherence to treatment. We therefore compared the efficacy, tolerability, acceptance and compliance of a new PEG-only formulation compared to a reference PEG-electrolyte (PEG-EL) formulation in resolving faecal impaction and in the treatment of chr ...[more]

PMID: 23152962

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo investigate the efficacy of lubiprostone compared to Senna on bowel symptoms and constipation in post-operative orthopedic patients treated with opioids.MethodsIn this double blind, randomized, active comparator trial, adults who required opioids for analgesia following orthopedic procedures and who were admitted in inpatient rehabilitation were randomized following baseline assessments to lubiprostone (Amitza(®)), orally twice a day or Senna (generic) two capsules administered daily for six days. Subjects were assessed using the patient assessment of constipation (PAC)-symptoms (PAC-SYM) and the PAC-quality of life (PAC-QOL) scales measured at baseline and Day 7; Subjects were assessed daily for secondary measures included the Bristol stool scale bowel consistency, specific bowel symptom score (Nausea, cramping, straining, completeness, abdominal pain, time per lavatory attempt, assistance needed), adverse events and rescue medications required. Function was measured using the functional independence measure (FIM) at admission and discharge; length of stay (LOS) and missed treatments due to gastrointestinal symptoms were also assessed.Results64 adults were enrolled; 56 participants (28 in each group) had baseline and follow up measures and were included in the intention to treat (ITT) analyses. 43 participants completed the study, 21 in the active lubiprostone and 22 in the active Senna group. The mean age of the participants was 71.5 years (SD = 11.4 years, range: 28-96 years). In the ITT analyses, participants showed significant improvement in bowel symptoms as measured by the PAC-SYM (mean ± SD, -0.28 ± 0.60, range: -1-2.33) and PAC-QOL (mean ± SD, 0.33 ± 0.81, range: -1.5-2.0) over time, but there were no significant differences between the lubiprostone and Senna groups in mean change in the PAC-SYM (-0.20 ± 0.60 vs -0.36 ± 0.61, P = 0.61 respectively) or the PAC-QOL (0.29 ± 0.76 vs 0.37 ± 0.87, P = 0.61 respectively). The mean change in each bowel symptom also did not significantly differ between treatment groups on ITT analyses, except for completeness of bowel movement, with the Senna group showing greater negative mean change in bowel movement completeness (-0.56 ± 1.01 vs -2.00 ± 1.41, P = 0.03) and for reduction of abdominal pain, favoring Senna (-0.14 ± 0.73 vs -0.73 ± 1.08, P = 0.04). Fifteen (75%) participants in the lubiprostone and in the Senna group requested rescue treatments. Participants made significant functional improvement from admission to discharge over a median LOS of 12 d, with a mean FIM change of 29.13 ± 13.58 and no significant between group differences (27.0 ± 9.2 vs 31.5 ± 16.6, P = 0.27).ConclusionBoth lubiprostone and Senna improved constipation-related symptoms and QOL in opioid-induced constipation, with no significant between-group differences.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and tolerability of peg-only laxative on faecal impaction and chronic constipation in children. A controlled double blind randomized study vs a standard peg-electrolyte laxative.

Publications

Efficacy and tolerability of peg-only laxative on faecal impaction and chronic constipation in children. A controlled double blind randomized study vs a standard peg-electrolyte laxative.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets