BACKGROUND: Fibre is often recommended as the first-choice treatment but its effects can be uneven. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of fibre versus lactulose in outpatients with chronic constipation. METHODS: In a prospective randomized crossover trial, patients were randomized to receive fibre or lactulose for four weeks. Between treatments, patients had at least one week free of laxatives. RESULTS:50 patients, of median age 50 years (range, 18-85) were recruited and 39 patients completed the trial. Compared to fibre, lactulose resulted in significantly higher mean bowel frequency (7.3, 95% CI 5.7 to 8.9 vs. 5.5, 95% CI 4.4 to 6.5; p=0.001) and stool consistency score (3.4, 95% CI 3.1 to 3.7 vs. 2.9, 95% CI 2.5 to 3.3; p=0.018). Scores for ease of evacuation were similar. The frequencies of adverse effects were not significantly different, but greater in the lactulose group. Mean patients' recorded improvement score was significantly higher after taking lactulose than fibre (6.2, 95% CI 5.5 to 7.0 vs. 4.8, 95% CI 4.0 to 5.9; p=0.017). Of the 39 patients who completed the trial, 24 (61.5%) preferred lactulose and 14 (35.9%) preferred fibre. CONCLUSIONS:Lactulose had better efficacy than fibre for chronic constipation in ambulant patients, although both treatments were equally well tolerated in terms of adverse effects.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Fibre is often recommended as the first-choice treatment but its effects can be uneven. The aim of the study was to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of fibre versus lactulose in outpatients with chronic constipation. METHODS: In a prospective randomized crossover trial, patients were randomized to receive fibre or lactulose for four weeks. Between treatments, patients had at least one week free of laxatives. RESULTS: 50 patients, of median age 50 years (range, 18-85) were recruited and 39 patients completed the trial. Compared to fibre, lactulose resulted in significantly higher mean bowel frequency (7.3, 95% CI 5.7 to 8.9 vs. 5.5, 95% CI 4.4 to 6.5; p=0.001) and stool consistency score (3.4, 95% CI 3.1 to 3.7 vs. 2.9, 95% CI 2.5 to 3.3; p=0.018). Scores for ease of evacuation were similar. The frequencies of adverse effects were not significantly different, but greater in the lactulose group. Mean patients' recorded improvement score was significantly higher after taking lactulose than fibre (6.2, 95% CI 5.5 to 7.0 vs. 4.8, 95% CI 4.0 to 5.9; p=0.017). Of the 39 patients who completed the trial, 24 (61.5%) preferred lactulose and 14 (35.9%) preferred fibre. CONCLUSIONS:Lactulose had better efficacy than fibre for chronic constipation in ambulant patients, although both treatments were equally well tolerated in terms of adverse effects.
Authors: Kok-Sun Ho; Charmaine You Mei Tan; Muhd Ashik Mohd Daud; Francis Seow-Choen Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 5.742