Abstract
Background:
On average 12% of the population worldwide suffer from acute or chronic constipation. Pathological intestine alterations, an unhealthy diet with reduced liquid intake, and little exercise are potential reasons. Often the motility of the intestine is disturbed. Changing nutrition habits or lifestyle is not always successful. In such cases, laxatives containing macrogol and inulin are highly effective.
Methodology:
The efficacy and tolerability of Laxatan® Granulat, a laxative containing macrogol, inulin, and mineral salts, was assessed in a drug-monitoring study of 105 patients for four weeks.
Results:
At the end of this study, a highly significant reduction of the constipation symptoms in 98.1% of the patients was observed. No adverse events were reported during this drug-monitoring study. The overall efficacy was rated as being “very good” or “good” for 96% and the overall tolerability was rated as being “very good” or “good” for 99% of patients.
Conclusion:
The combination of macrogol, inulin, and mineral salts is highly effective in the treatment of chronic constipation. Due to its prebiotic activity, inulin probably leads to proliferation of lactic acid-producing bacteria. The lowered pH and increased water content probably increases the peristaltic action and therefore reduces constipation.
Keywords: Laxatan®, macrogol, inulin, constipation
Introduction
Constipation is defined by infrequent bowel movements, typically only every three to four days a week, difficulties during defecation, and is associated with hard stool, pain, strong pressing, and the sensation of incomplete bowel evacuation. When these symptoms last for more than three months, the condition is called chronic constipation. The reasons for constipation are manifold. In some cases it is caused by a low fiber diet, dehydration, or a lack of exercise. Other reasons are intestinal disorders, treatment with medication, or disturbances in the water and electrolyte balance. Changing nutrition habits, such as a high fiber diet and higher liquid intake, or a change of the lifestyle such as an increased level of exercises are not always effective.1,2 In these cases laxatives are useful. However, long-term administration of pharmaceutical laxatives could result in habituation and a reduced efficacy of the laxative. Laxatives containing macrogol and inulin can be used over a long time without causing habituation. Macrogol consists of polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a nontoxic and highly soluble component, which is not absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract.3,4 PEG acts as an osmotic agent by increasing fecal water content.5 The increased stool volume dilates the bowel wall and triggers the defecation reflex. The efficacy and safety has been shown in several clinical studies.6–8 PEG has been accepted as a substance generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Inulin has no or only minor laxative properties, but pronounced prebiotic activity.9,10 In contrast to probiotics, which are defined as viable microbials, prebiotics are nondigestible for humans, but selectively stimulate the growth and activity of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli.11 These microorganisms are well known because of their positive effect on the intestinal health by producing lactic acid which lowers the pH in the colon and leads to an increased peristaltic activity.12
The primary objective of this drug-monitoring study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of Laxatan® Granulat, a combination of macrogol, inulin, and mineral salts, in symptoms of chronic constipation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the effect of a combination of macrogol and the prebiotic inulin on patients with chronic constipation.
Patients and methods
In total 105 patients (86 women; 19 men) with chronic constipation and at least three constipation symptoms of moderate intensity were enrolled into this drug monitoring study. Additionally, all patients were at least 18 years old and long-term user of laxatives. Exclusion criteria consisted of anaphylaxis against one of the ingredients of the medication, simultaneous intake of other laxatives, dubious pain in the abdominal cavity, possibility of intestinal perforation, intestinal obstruction, inflammatory colon disease (such as Crohn’s disease, colitis ulcerosa), acute toxic megacolon, serious organ or systemic disease, alcohol abuse, drug or medication abuse, or pregnancy or lactation. The patients had an average age of 64.3 years (22 to 94 years), an average height of 164.7 cm (141 to 187 cm), and an average weight of 74.8 kg (50 to 162 kg). During the first two weeks the patients took 2 × 2 packages of Laxatan® Granulat (dissolved in 125 ml water) daily. In the following two weeks the dosage was reduced to 2 × 1 package of Laxatan® Granulat per day. One package of Laxatan® Granulat contains 13.125 g macrogol 4000, 0.25 g magnesium citrate, 0.125 g calcium citrate, 0.015 g potassium chloride, and 1.0 g inulin. During the course of the study, a total of three examinations were performed for each patient: a baseline assessment at the start of the study, a control examination after about two weeks, and a final examination after about four weeks at the end of the study.
At each examination, the following constipation symptoms were rated by means of a four-point rating scale: infrequent defecation, firm stool, painful defecation, strong pressing during defecation, stomachache, sensation of fullness, and flatulence. Rome criteria were not used to diagnose constipation. At the end of the study the sum score of all constipation symptoms was calculated for each examination and the change of the sum score at study end compared to baseline was assessed. The sum score was calculated based on the average score of each symptom (0 to 3 points) and could reach a value between 0 and 21 for all seven symptoms. The efficacy criteria were the decrease of the sum score for the constipation symptoms and a global assessment of the efficacy conducted by the physicians and patients at the end of the study. The tolerability was evaluated based on the occurrence of adverse events and by a global assessment of the tolerability by the physicians and patients at the end of therapy.
The study was performed according to the recommendations of German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), The German Society for Phytotherapy (GPHY), as well as the German Society for Medical Computer Science Biometry and Epidemiology (GMDS).13–15
Statistical analysis
The results of this study are presented descriptively, with efficacy evaluated by means of a pretreatment versus post-treatment comparison. A Wilcoxon test for paired values was used for changes in the sum score of the constipation symptoms and Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to calculate the level of significance.
Results
Data were analyzed for all 105 patients. To evaluate the efficacy of the Laxatan® Granulat, the seven constipation symptoms (infrequent defecation, firm stool, painful defecation, strong pressing during defecation, stomachache, feeling of fullness, flatulence) were assessed at three examinations by the physician. Each constipation symptom was rated on a four-point rating scale (0 = none, 1 = minor, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe) resulting in an average score for each symptom at each examination between 0 and 3. The frequency distribution of the seven constipation symptoms at each examination is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.
Symptoms | Examination | N |
Assessment of intensity |
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
None |
Minor |
Moderate |
Severe |
|||||||
Patients | [%] | Patients | [%] | Patients | [%] | Patients | [%] | |||
Infrequent defecation | 1 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 41.9 | 61 | 58.1 |
2 | 105 | 31 | 29.5 | 45 | 42.9 | 27 | 25.7 | 2 | 1.9 | |
3 | 105 | 43 | 41.0 | 49 | 46.7 | 11 | 10.5 | 2 | 1.9 | |
Firm stool | 1 | 105 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1.0 | 28 | 26.7 | 76 | 72.4 |
2 | 105 | 37 | 35.2 | 40 | 38.1 | 26 | 24.8 | 2 | 1.9 | |
3 | 105 | 48 | 45.7 | 48 | 45.7 | 8 | 7.6 | 1 | 1.0 | |
Painful defecation | 1 | 105 | 19 | 18.1 | 13 | 12.4 | 44 | 41.9 | 29 | 27.6 |
2 | 105 | 58 | 55.2 | 31 | 29.5 | 13 | 12.4 | 3 | 2.9 | |
3 | 105 | 73 | 69.5 | 23 | 21.9 | 8 | 7.6 | 1 | 1.0 | |
Strong pressing | 1 | 105 | 4 | 3.8 | 7 | 6.7 | 40 | 38.1 | 54 | 51.4 |
2 | 105 | 42 | 40.0 | 36 | 34.3 | 22 | 21.0 | 5 | 4.8 | |
3 | 105 | 60 | 57.1 | 30 | 28.6 | 13 | 12.4 | 2 | 1.9 | |
Stomachache | 1 | 104 | 38 | 36.5 | 21 | 20.2 | 34 | 32.7 | 11 | 10.6 |
2 | 105 | 64 | 61.0 | 29 | 27.6 | 11 | 10.5 | 1 | 1.0 | |
3 | 105 | 68 | 64.8 | 30 | 28.6 | 7 | 6.7 | 0 | 0 | |
Feeling of fullness | 1 | 105 | 4 | 3.8 | 20 | 19.0 | 49 | 46.7 | 32 | 30.5 |
2 | 105 | 33 | 31.4 | 43 | 41.0 | 25 | 23.8 | 4 | 3.8 | |
3 | 105 | 48 | 45.7 | 35 | 33.3 | 20 | 19.0 | 2 | 1.9 | |
Flatulence | 1 | 105 | 5 | 4.8 | 30 | 28.6 | 44 | 41.9 | 26 | 24.8 |
2 | 105 | 17 | 16.2 | 50 | 47.6 | 31 | 29.5 | 7 | 6.7 | |
3 | 105 | 24 | 22.9 | 55 | 52.4 | 22 | 21.0 | 4 | 3.8 |
For all examined symptoms an improvement could be demonstrated by a comparison before and after treatment.
Before treatment
Infrequent defecation
At the first examination, all patients (100%) complained of moderate or severe infrequent defecation. By the end of the therapy (third examination) 82.7% showed no or minor complaints of this symptom, and only 12.4% of the patients still suffered from moderate or strong infrequent defecation.
Firm stool
At the beginning of therapy, 104 patients were afflicted by firm stool (26.7% moderate, 72.4% severe). After about two weeks (second examination), 73.3% were either free of this symptom or had only minor complaints. At the end of the study only one patient had severe problems with firm stool.
Painful defecation
Moderate or severe pain during defecation was reported by 69.5% of patients at the first examination. At the end of the observation, 91.4% of patients were either free of pain or reported tolerable (minor) pain during defecation.
Strong pressing during defecation
Like all other symptoms the strong pressing during defecation symptom was significantly reduced from the first to third examinations. At the beginning of the study, defecation was associated with severe or moderate pressing for 89.5% of the patients. Only 14.3% rated this symptom as severe or moderate after about four weeks at the third examination.
Stomachache
In 43.3% of patients, constipation was associated with moderate or severe stomachache. At the end of the study, 68 of 105 patients (64%) were free of stomachache and none of the patients complained about severe stomachache.
Feeling of fullness
At the first examination, 77.2% of the patients complained about a moderate or severe feeling of fullness. By the end of the therapy (third examination), 79.0% had no or minor complaints of this symptom and only 20.9% still suffered from moderate or strong feeling of fullness.
Flatulence
Flatulence was reported as moderate or severe by 66.7% of the patients at the first examination. At the end of the study, 26 of 105 patients (24.8%) still suffered from moderate or severe flatulence. 52.4% complained about minor flatulence and 22.9% of the patients were symptom free.
After treatment
The improvement of chronic constipation could also be demonstrated by the decrease of the average scores of the individual constipation symptoms. The decrease of these scores is shown in Figure 1.
Infrequent defecation
The average score for the symptom infrequent defecation was 2.58 ± 0.5 at the beginning of the therapy and dropped down to 0.73 ± 0.73 at the last examination. The improvement rate of 71.1% is statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).
Firm stool
The average score for this symptom was 2.71 ± 0.48 at the first examination and decreased to 0.64 ± 0.67 at the third examination. The improvement rate of 76.4% by the end of the study is statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).
Painful defecation
The average score for painful defecation had a value of 1.79 ± 1.04 at the beginning of the study and a value of 0.40 ± 0.67 by the end of the study. The improvement rate of 77.6% is statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).
Strong pressing during defecation
The average score for the symptom of strong pressing during defecation was 2.37 ± 0.78 at the beginning of the therapy and dropped down to 0.59 ± 0.78 at the last examination. The improvement rate of 75.1% is statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).
Stomachache
The average score for this symptom was reduced from 1.17 ± 1.05 at the first examination to 0.42 ± 0.62 by the end of the study. The improvement rate of 64.1% is highly statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).
Feeling of fullness
The average score for “feeling of fullness” had at the beginning of the study a value of 2.04 ±0.81 which decreased to 0.77 ± 0.82 at the last examination. The reduction of the symptom by 62.3% is statistically highly significant (P < 0.001).
Flatulence
The reduction of the average score of this symptom was statistically highly significant. The average score decreased from 1.87 ± 0.84 at the first examination to 1.06 ± 0.77 at the third examination, which represents a statistically highly significant (P < 0.001) improvement rate of 43.3%.
Summation of the average scores of the seven individual symptoms resulted in the sum score for all symptoms as shown in Figure 2. This sum score clearly demonstrates a strong reduction of the constipation symptoms between the first, second, and third assessment. The value dropped from 14.5 ± 2.9 points at the beginning of the study to 4.6 ± 3.9 points by the end of the study, which represents an improvement rate of 68%. This result was statistically highly significant (P < 0.001)
Global assessment of efficacy
At the end of the observation period the efficacy of Laxatan® Granulat was rated both by the physicians and the patients. The categories were “very good”, “good”, “moderate”, and “insufficient”. 96.1% of the physicians and the patients rated the efficacy as being “very good” or “good”. 91.3% of the patients reported that Laxatan® Granulat had a better effect than the laxatives used previously.
Global assessment of tolerability
An evaluation of the tolerability of Laxatan® Granulat was performed by the patients and the physicians. The product was reported as being “very good” or “good” by 98.0% of the patients and 99.0% of the physicians, respectively. There were no adverse events during the course of the study.
Global assessment of compliance
Compliance was judged by the physicians as being “very good” or “good” for 96.1% of patients.
Discussion
The term chronic constipation is used if there is no defecation for periods of four days for longer than three months, when strong pressure is necessary for defecation and if there is a feeling of incomplete defecation. The objective of treatment of constipation is the increase in intestinal motility. Macrogols are polymeric macromolecules (PEG), which are not adsorbed by the digestive system. Due to their osmotic activity and the ability to bind water, they hydrate hardened stool and increase the stool volume, leading to expansion of the intestinal wall. This provokes the defecation reflex.16 In contrast to lactulose, a commonly used osmotic-acting laxative, PEG is more effective17 with fewer side effects. The use of lactulose may lead to habituation, which has not been observed with PEG.18
The safety and efficacy of PEG preparations in treatment of chronic constipation has been shown in several short-19,20 and long-term clinical studies21–23 and are summarized in several reviews.6,24,25 The safety of PEG has also been demonstrated in toxicity studies, where PEG neither showed mutagenic nor carcinogenic effects.26,27
The efficacy and safety has even been demonstrated in children. Eighty-three children received the PEG therapy on average for 8.7 months. The medication was well tolerated and did not cause major clinical adverse effects.22 The use of macrogol is nowadays the first choice for treatment of chronic constipation.
However, it has been shown that PEG 4000 may inhibit the metabolic activities of the fecal flora.19 Inulin on the other hand is a prebiotic. Prebiotics are not laxatives. They have a positive influence on the composition of intestinal flora and move the bacterial colonies in the direction of the desired bifidobacteria and lactobacilli. These bacteria build lactic acid and lower the pH in the colon, which increases the peristaltic of the intestine.12 Therefore, the new combination product of both PEG and inulin will be beneficial for patients suffering from constipation.
Conclusion
To our knowledge this is the first drug-monitoring study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a combination product of macrogol, inulin, and mineral salt in patients with chronic constipation. This study has demonstrated very good efficacy and safety in the combination product of macrogol and inulin. Upon conclusion of the drug-monitoring study, 98.1% of the patients showed an improvement of the symptoms of chronic constipation. The sum score for the constipation symptoms calculated from the average scores of the individual symptoms at the conclusion of the study (after 32.2 days) showed a statistically highly significant (P < 0.001) improvement of 68.3% and a clinically relevant reduction of the symptoms. The average scores of the individual symptoms (infrequent defecation, hard defecation, painful defecation, strong pressure necessary for defecation, stomachache, feeling of fullness, and flatulence) showed a statistically highly significant decrease (P < 0.001) between the first and third examinations. The improvement rates for the individual symptoms lay between 43.3% and 77.6% (before/after comparison).
At the end of the observation period, 96.1% of the physicians and patients rated the efficacy of the treatment as being “very good” or “good”. 91.3% of the patients stated that Laxatan® Granulat had a better effect than the laxative used previously.
The tolerability of the product was rated as being “very good” or “good” by 98.0% of the patients and 99.0% of the physicians, respectively. No adverse events occurred during the course of the study. Compliance was judged by the physicians as being “very good” or “good” for 96.1% of patients.
The results of this drug-monitoring study demonstrate a very good efficacy and tolerability of the combination product containing macrogol, the prebiotic inulin, and mineral salts with statistically highly significant and clinically relevant improvements of the symptoms of chronic constipation. We have shown that the combination is highly effective. However, we don’t know to which extent the individual components influence the result. Further double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials should be performed to distinguish between the different components and to confirm these promising findings.
Footnotes
Disclosures
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
- 1.Foxx-Orenstein AE, McNally MA, Odunsi ST. Update on constipation: one treatment does not fit all. Cleve Clin J Med. 2008;75:813–824. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.75.11.813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Muller-Lissner SA, Kamm MA, Scarpignato C, Wald A. Myths and misconceptions about chronic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:232–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40885.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hammer HF, Santa Ana CA, Schiller LR, Fordtran JS. Studies of osmotic diarrhea induced in normal subjects by ingestion of polyethylene glycol and lactulose. J Clin Invest. 1989;84:1056–1062. doi: 10.1172/JCI114267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.DiPiro JT, Michael KA, Clark BA, et al. Absorption of polyethylene glycol after administration of a PEG-electrolyte lavage solution. Clin Pharm. 1986;5:153–155. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Schiller LR, Emmett M, Santa Ana CA, Fordtran JS. Osmotic effects of polyethylene glycol. Gastroenterology. 1988;94:933–941. doi: 10.1016/0016-5085(88)90550-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hammer HF, Hammer J, Gasche C. [Polyethylene glycol (Macrogol) – an overview of its use in diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal diseases] Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2000;112:53–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lemann M, Chamiot-Prieur C, Mesnard B, et al. Methotrexate for the treatment of refractory Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1996;10:309–314. doi: 10.1111/j.0953-0673.1996.00309.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Dipalma JA, Cleveland MV, McGowan J, Herrera JL. A randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial of polyethylene glycol laxative for chronic treatment of chronic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1436–1441. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01199.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Kleessen B, Sykura B, Zunft HJ, Blaut M. Effects of inulin and lactose on fecal microflora, microbial activity, and bowel habit in elderly constipated persons. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65:1397–1402. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/65.5.1397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kruse HP, Kleessen B, Blaut M. Effects of inulin on faecal bifidobacteria in human subjects. Br J Nutr. 1999;82:375–382. doi: 10.1017/s0007114599001622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Roberfroid MB. Prebiotics and probiotics: are they functional foods. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71:1682S–1687S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/71.6.1682S. discussion 1688S–1690S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kolida S, Tuohy K, Gibson GR. Prebiotic effects of inulin and oligofructose. Br J Nutr. 2002;87(Suppl 2):S193–S197. doi: 10.1079/BJNBJN/2002537. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.BfArM Empfehlugen zur Planung, Durchführung und Auswertung von Anwendungsbeobachtungen. BAnZ. 1998;229:16884–16885. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie e V. Empfehlungen der Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie (GPHY) zur Planung, Durchführung und Auswertung von Anwendungsbeobachtungen. Klin Pharmakol akt. 1996;7:76–83. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bundesgesetzblatt Vierzehntes Gesetz zur Änderung des Arzneimittelgesetzes vom 15. Dezember 2005. Bundesgestzblatt. 2005. Teil I.
- 16.Klaschik E, Nauck F, Ostgathe C. Constipation – modern laxative therapy. Support Care Cancer. 2003;11:679–685. doi: 10.1007/s00520-003-0525-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Fritz E, Hammer HF, Lipp RW, et al. Effects of lactulose and polyethylene glycol on colonic transit. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;21:259–268. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02244.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Attar A, Lemann M, Ferguson A, et al. Comparison of a low dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution with lactulose for treatment of chronic constipation. Gut. 1999;44:226–230. doi: 10.1136/gut.44.2.226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Bouhnik Y, Neut C, Raskine L, et al. Prospective, randomized, parallel-group trial to evaluate the effects of lactulose and polyethylene glycol-4000 on colonic flora in chronic idiopathic constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;19:889–899. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2004.01918.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Chaussade S, Minic M. Comparison of efficacy and safety of two doses of two different polyethylene glycol-based laxatives in the treatment of constipation. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17:165–172. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01390.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Corazziari E, Badiali D, Bazzocchi G, et al. Long term efficacy, safety, and tolerabilitity of low daily doses of isosmotic polyethylene glycol electrolyte balanced solution (PMF-100) in the treatment of functional chronic constipation. Gut. 2000;46:522–526. doi: 10.1136/gut.46.4.522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pashankar DS, Loening-Baucke V, Bishop WP. Safety of polyethylene glycol 3350 for the treatment of chronic constipation in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003;157:661–664. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.157.7.661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Voskuijl W, de Lorijn F, Verwijs W, et al. PEG 3350 (Transipeg) versus lactulose in the treatment of childhood functional constipation: a double blind, randomised, controlled, multicentre trial. Gut. 2004;53:1590–1594. doi: 10.1136/gut.2004.043620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Arora R, Srinivasan R. Is polyethylene glycol safe and effective for chronic constipation in children? Arch Dis Child. 2005;90:643–646. doi: 10.1136/adc.2005.072918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Webster R, Didier E, Harris P, et al. PEGylated proteins: evaluation of their safety in the absence of definitive metabolism studies. Drug Metab Dispos. 2007;35:9–16. doi: 10.1124/dmd.106.012419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Fruijtier-Polloth C. Safety assessment on polyethylene glycols (PEGs) and their derivatives as used in cosmetic products. Toxicology. 2005;214:1–38. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2005.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Working P, Newman M, Johnson J, Cornacoff J. Safety of the poly(ethylene glycol) and poly(ethylene glycol) derivates. San Francisco, CA: American Chemical Society; 1971. [Google Scholar]