Differences in taste between three polyethylene glycol preparations: a randomized double-blind study

Chronic constipation diagnosis and treatment evaluation: the "CHRO.CO.DI.T.E." study

BACKGROUND

According to Rome criteria, chronic constipation (CC) includes functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Some patients do not meet these criteria (No Rome Constipation, NRC). The aim of the study was is to evaluate the various clinical presentation and management of FC, IBS-C and NRC in Italy.

METHODS

During a 2-month period, 52 Italian gastroenterologists recorded clinical data of FC, IBS-C and NRC patients, using Bristol scale, PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL questionnaires. In addition, gastroenterologists were also asked to record whether the patients were clinically assessed for CC for the first time or were in follow up. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies were also recorded.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seventy-eight consecutive CC patients (706 F) were enrolled (FC 62.5%, IBS-C 31.3%, NRC 6.2%). PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL scores were higher in IBS-C than in FC and NRC. 49.5% were at their first gastroenterological evaluation for CC. In 48.5% CC duration was longer than 10 years. A specialist consultation was requested in 31.6%, more frequently in IBS-C than in NRC. Digital rectal examination was performed in only 56.4%. Diagnostic tests were prescribed to 80.0%. Faecal calprotectin, thyroid tests, celiac serology, breath tests were more frequently suggested in IBS-C and anorectal manometry in FC. More than 90% had at least one treatment suggested on chronic constipation, most frequently dietary changes, macrogol and fibers. Antispasmodics and psychotherapy were more frequently prescribed in IBS-C, prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation in FC.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBS-C reported more severe symptoms and worse quality of life than FC and NRC. Digital rectal examination was often not performed but at least one diagnostic test was prescribed to most patients. Colonoscopy and blood tests were the "first line" diagnostic tools. Macrogol was the most prescribed laxative, and prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation represented a "second line" approach. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies increased by increasing CC severity.

Chronic constipation diagnosis and treatment evaluation: the "CHRO.CO.DI.T.E." study

BACKGROUND

According to Rome criteria, chronic constipation (CC) includes functional constipation (FC) and irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Some patients do not meet these criteria (No Rome Constipation, NRC). The aim of the study was is to evaluate the various clinical presentation and management of FC, IBS-C and NRC in Italy.

METHODS

During a 2-month period, 52 Italian gastroenterologists recorded clinical data of FC, IBS-C and NRC patients, using Bristol scale, PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL questionnaires. In addition, gastroenterologists were also asked to record whether the patients were clinically assessed for CC for the first time or were in follow up. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies were also recorded.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seventy-eight consecutive CC patients (706 F) were enrolled (FC 62.5%, IBS-C 31.3%, NRC 6.2%). PAC-SYM and PAC-QoL scores were higher in IBS-C than in FC and NRC. 49.5% were at their first gastroenterological evaluation for CC. In 48.5% CC duration was longer than 10 years. A specialist consultation was requested in 31.6%, more frequently in IBS-C than in NRC. Digital rectal examination was performed in only 56.4%. Diagnostic tests were prescribed to 80.0%. Faecal calprotectin, thyroid tests, celiac serology, breath tests were more frequently suggested in IBS-C and anorectal manometry in FC. More than 90% had at least one treatment suggested on chronic constipation, most frequently dietary changes, macrogol and fibers. Antispasmodics and psychotherapy were more frequently prescribed in IBS-C, prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation in FC.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBS-C reported more severe symptoms and worse quality of life than FC and NRC. Digital rectal examination was often not performed but at least one diagnostic test was prescribed to most patients. Colonoscopy and blood tests were the "first line" diagnostic tools. Macrogol was the most prescribed laxative, and prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitation represented a "second line" approach. Diagnostic tests and prescribed therapies increased by increasing CC severity.

Comparison of Polyethylene Glycol-Electrolyte Solution vs Polyethylene Glycol-3350 for the Treatment of Fecal Impaction in Pediatric Patients

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution vs polyethylene glycol-3350 for the treatment of fecal impaction in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, institutional review board-approved study was conducted over a 1-year time period. Patients were included in the study if they were admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of fecal impaction or constipation and were treated with either polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) or polyethylene glycol-3350 (PEG-3350). Patients were excluded if they were discharged prior to resolution of treatment and/or did not receive PEG-ES or PEG-3350.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients (ranging in age from 1 month to 15 years) were evaluated: 23 patients received PEG-ES and 28 patients received PEG-3350. Sex, race, age, and weight were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Resolution of fecal impaction was not significantly different between PEG-ES vs PEG-3350 (87% and 86%, respectively; p = 0.87). There was only 1 reported side effect with PEG-3350, vs 11 reported side effects with PEG-ES (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Theses results suggest that PEG-3350 is as effective as PEG-ES for the treatment of fecal impaction in pediatric patients and is associated with fewer side effects.