Back to Journals » Patient Preference and Adherence » Volume 5

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

Authors Lam T, Mulder CJ, Felt-Bersma RJ

Published 17 August 2011 Volume 2011:5 Pages 423—426


Review by Single-blind

Peer reviewer comments 3

Tze J Lam, Chris JJ Mulder, Richelle JF Felt-Bersma
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Background and aim: Patients suffering from chronic constipation require long-term, regular therapy with laxatives. Literature regarding patient preference and acceptance in polyethylene glycol preparations is scarce. Therefore, this research aimed to identify preference between the three polyethylene glycol 3350, namely Molaxole®, Movicol®, and Laxtra Orange®. Furthermore, taste is one of the most important factors leading to patients’ adherence, particularly when the treatment lasts for a long time.
Methods: In this randomized, cross-over double-blind study, 100 volunteers were recruited by advertisement. The volunteers were invited to taste the preparations and grade the taste using a five-point hedonic scale (extremely poor taste [1] to extremely good taste [5]). The volunteers were then asked to choose the most palatable preparation.
Results: One hundred volunteers with a mean age of 35 years (range 20–61) were randomized (76 females). Molaxole®, Movicol®, and Laxtra Orange® had a mean hedonic score of 2.76 (SD: 0.82), 2.81 (SD: 0.76) and 3.12 (SD: 0.82) respectively. The hedonic taste score for Laxtra Orange® was significantly better than Molaxole® (P = 0.001) and Movicol® (P = 0.001). No difference was found between Molaxole® and Movicol® (P = 0.61). Molaxole® was the most preferred preparation for 19 volunteers (19%), Movicol® for 24 volunteers (25%) and Laxtra Orange® for 55 volunteers (56%). Two volunteers had no preference. The order in which volunteers tested the preparations had no influence on the taste results. No significant differences in age or gender were observed.
Conclusion: Laxtra Orange® was most palatable preparation. This may have implications for adherence in patients with chronic constipation.

Keywords: constipation, polyethylene glycol, laxative, macrogol, molaxole, movicol, laxtra, medication adherence

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]


Readers of this article also read:

Green synthesis of water-soluble nontoxic polymeric nanocomposites containing silver nanoparticles

Prozorova GF, Pozdnyakov AS, Kuznetsova NP, Korzhova SA, Emel’yanov AI, Ermakova TG, Fadeeva TV, Sosedova LM

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2014, 9:1883-1889

Published Date: 16 April 2014

Methacrylic-based nanogels for the pH-sensitive delivery of 5-Fluorouracil in the colon

Ashwanikumar N, Kumar NA, Nair SA, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5769-5779

Published Date: 15 November 2012

A novel preparation method for silicone oil nanoemulsions and its application for coating hair with silicone

Hu Z, Liao M, Chen Y, Cai Y, Meng L, Liu Y, Lv N, Liu Z, Yuan W

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:5719-5724

Published Date: 12 November 2012

Cross-linked acrylic hydrogel for the controlled delivery of hydrophobic drugs in cancer therapy

Deepa G, Thulasidasan AK, Anto RJ, Pillai JJ, Kumar GS

International Journal of Nanomedicine 2012, 7:4077-4088

Published Date: 27 July 2012

Crystallization after intravitreal ganciclovir injection

Pitipol Choopong, Nattaporn Tesavibul, Nattawut Rodanant

Clinical Ophthalmology 2010, 4:709-711

Published Date: 14 July 2010