Macrogol (polyethylene glycol) 4000 without electrolytes in the symptomatic treatment of chronic constipation: a profile of its use
- 80 Downloads
Macrogol 4000, a biologically inert, non-absorbable osmotic laxative, is a highly effective and well-tolerated first-line option for the treatment of the symptoms of chronic idiopathic/functional constipation in children and adults. High-molecular-weight (HMW) macrogols ± electrolytes have generally similar efficacy profiles; however, the taste of macrogol 4000 is generally preferred over that of macrogol 3350 + electrolytes. Macrogol 4000 is more effective than lactulose in improving stool frequency and consistency, and is associated with less vomiting and flatulence. Comparisons with other osmotic and bulk-forming laxatives are limited, with macrogol 4000 being at least as, or more effective than, psyllium hydrocolloid and magnesium hydroxide in treating chronic constipation. Current clinical treatment guidelines recommend the use of HMW macrogols over the use of lactulose and bulk-forming laxative in the symptomatic treatment of constipation in children and adults.
The manuscript was reviewed by: M. Alboraie, Department of Internal Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt; M. Bellini, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; M.A. Benninga, Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; C. Blandizzi, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. During the peer review process, Ipsen Consumer Healthcare, a marketing-authorization holder of macrogol 4000, was also offered an opportunity to provide a scientific accuracy review of their data. Changes resulting from comments received were made on the basis of scientific and editorial merit.
Compliance with ethical standards
The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding.
Conflicts of interest
K. A. Lyseng-Williamson is an employee of Adis/Springer, is responsible for the article content and declares no conflicts of interest.
- 3.Shafe AC, Lee S, Dalrymple JS, et al. The LUCK study: laxative usage in patients with GP-diagnosed constipation in the UK, within the general population and in pregnancy. An epidemiological study using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2011;4(6):343–63.Google Scholar
- 4.Lindberg G, Hamid S, Malfertheiner P, et al. Constipation: a global perspective. Milwaukee: World Gastroenterology Organisation; 2010.Google Scholar
- 5.Koppen IJN, Vriesman MH, Saps M, et al. Prevalence of functional defecation disorders in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pediatr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.02.029 (Epub 2018).
- 8.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Clinical management of idiopathic constipation in children and young people. Manchester: NICE; 2015.Google Scholar
- 11.Vitton V, Damon H, Siproudhis L. Societe Nationale Francaise de Colo-Proctologie (SNFCP). Recommendations for the management of constipation in clinical practice: 2016 [in French]. Paris: SNFCP; 2016. p. 2016.Google Scholar
- 15.Forlax® 4 g, powder for oral solution in sachet: summary of product characteristics. Boulogne-Billancourt: Ipsen Pharma; 2015.Google Scholar
- 16.Forlax® 10 mg (macrogol 4000), powder for oral solution in sachet: patient information leaflet. Slough: Ipsen Ltd; 2016.Google Scholar
- 32.Szojda MM, Mulder CJ, Felt-Bersma RJ. Differences in taste between two polyethylene glycol preparations. J Gastrointest Liver Dis. 2007;16(4):379–81.Google Scholar
- 35.Ratananomgkol R, Lertmaharit S, Jongpiputvanich S. Polyethylene glycol 4000 without electrolytes versus milk of magnesia for the treatment of functional constipation in infants and young children: a randomized controlled trial. Asian Biomed. 2009;3(4):391–9.Google Scholar
- 36.Gomes PB, Duarte MA, Melo Mdo C. Comparison of the effectiveness of polyethylene glycol 4000 without electrolytes and magnesium hydroxide in the treatment of chronic functional constipation in children [in Portuguese]. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2011;87(1):24–8.Google Scholar
- 51.Gordon M, MacDonald JK, Parker CE, et al. Osmotic and stimulant laxatives for the management of childhood constipation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(8):Cd009118.Google Scholar
- 53.Lee-Robichaud H, Thomas K, Morgan J, et al. Lactulose versus polyethylene glycol for chronic constipation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(7):Cd007570.Google Scholar
- 56.Katelaris P, Naganathan V, Liu K, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of polyethylene glycol with and without electrolytes in constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016;16:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-016-0457-9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.Denis P, Teillet L, Moulias R. Long-term tolerance of Forlax®: a comparative study versus lactulose in patients with functional constipation [in French]. Gastroenterologie. 1997.Google Scholar
- 61.Zhou L, Xia Z, Lin S, et al. A randomized controlled multicenter clinical trial on the treatment of chronic functional constipation with PEG4000. Chin J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;1:7–10.Google Scholar
- 62.Denis P, Lerebours E. Study of the long-term tolerance of Forlax® in 16 patients treated for an average of 17 months for chronic constipation [in French]. Med Chir Digest. 1996;25(5):1–4.Google Scholar
- 67.Resolor (prucalopride) tablets: summary of product characteristics. London: European Medicines Agency; 2018.Google Scholar