RESUMO
Bowel preparation using large volume of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions is often poorly tolerated. Therefore, there are ongoing efforts to develop an alternative bowel cleansing regimen that should be equally effective and better tolerated. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of lubiprostone (versus placebo) plus PEG as a bowel cleansing preparation for colonoscopy. Our study was a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled design. Patients scheduled for screening colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to lubiprostone (group 1) or placebo (group 2) plus 1 gallon of PEG. The primary endpoints were patient's tolerability and endoscopist's evaluation of the preparation quality. The secondary endpoint was to determine any reduction in the amount of PEG consumed in the lubiprostone group compared with the placebo group. One hundred twenty-three patients completed the study and were included in the analysis. There was no difference in overall cleanliness. The volume of PEG was similar in both the groups. The volume of PEG approached significance as a predictor of improved score for both the groups (P = 0.054). Lubiprostone plus PEG was similar to placebo plus PEG in colon cleansing and volume of PEG consumed. The volume of PEG consumed showed a trend toward improving the quality of the colon cleansing.
Assuntos
Colonoscopia/métodos , Eletrólitos/administração & dosagem , Lubiprostona/administração & dosagem , Polietilenoglicóis/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Método Duplo-Cego , Eletrólitos/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Lubiprostona/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , Polietilenoglicóis/efeitos adversos , Estudos Prospectivos , Soluções , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Chronic pain related to postoperative abdominal adhesions is a common problem with no standard analgesic regimen currently established. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we examined the effects of pregabalin on pain modulation in patients with prior abdominal surgery and documented adhesion. The primary outcome measure was pain relief documented by a 2-point change on the Likert pain scale with a secondary pain measure of sleep interruption. A total of 18 women were randomized to receive either the drug (n = 11) or placebo (n = 7). Thirteen patients (eight pregabalin, five placebo) completed the blinded phase and 10 patients (seven pregabalin, three placebo) completed the open-label phase. Statistical analysis was performed in two settings: 1) Week 0 (as the baseline) through the end of Week 7 of the blinded fixed-dose phase; and 2) Week 7 (as the baseline) along With weeks 8 through 11 of the open-label phase. The pain score result from the blinded phase setting indicated that the amount of decrease was significantly greater in the drug group (P = 0.024), whereas the pain score result from the open-label setting indicated that the amount of decrease was significantly greater in the placebo group (P = 0.043). Only the sleep score result in the open-label setting was significantly greater in the placebo group (P = 0.024). We conclude that pregabalin significantly reduced patient-documented pain scores compared with placebo in our small cohort of patients with abdominal adhesion pain.