search
Back to results

Dulcolax vs Placebo in Functional Constipation

Primary Purpose

Constipation

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
United Kingdom
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Bisacodyl 10 mg
Placebo
Sponsored by
Boehringer Ingelheim
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Constipation

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Male and female patients, aged 18 and above
  2. Suffering from functional constipation, according to their medical history, as defined by the Rome III diagnostic criteria , i.e.:Criteria fulfilled for the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months prior to diagnosis.

    1. Must include 2 or more of the following::

      • straining during at least 25% of the defecations
      • lumpy or hard stools in at least 25% of the defecations
      • sensation of incomplete evacuation for at least 25% of the defecations
      • sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockade for at least 25% of the defecations
      • manual manoeuvres to facilitate at least 25% of the defecations (e.g. digital evacuation, support of the pelvic floor)
      • fewer than 3 defecations per week
    2. Loose stools are rarely present without the use of laxatives
    3. There are insufficient criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)
  3. Able and willing to complete a daily e-diary
  4. Able and willing to use the trial rescue medication
  5. Signed and dated written informed consent prior to enrolment into the study in accordance with GCP and local legislation

    At Visit 2, patients must comply with the following additional inclusion criteria to be eligible for entry into the treatment phase:

  6. Functional constipation is confirmed by e-diary data at the end of the baseline period:

    a. An average of less than 3 CSBMs per week, together with at least one of the following symptoms occurring at least 25% of the time:

    • straining
    • incomplete evacuation
    • lumpy or hard stools (i.e. type 1 or type 2 stools)
  7. Compliant with the use of the e-diary throughout the baseline period (compliance is defined as completing 80% of the evening reports)
  8. Compliant with the use of rescue medication throughout the baseline period. Compliance is defined as follows:

    • rescue medication may be used if there has not been a bowel movement for more than 72 hrs rescue medication may not be used on either day -1 or on the day of randomisation (day 1)

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, as a cause of excessive use of laxatives
  2. Patients whose constipation is caused by primary organic disease of the colon or pelvic floor
  3. Patients with metabolic disorders, neurological disorders, severe or psychiatric disorders, or any other significant disease or intercurrent illness (e.g. abdominal/gastrointestinal surgery) that, in the Investigators opinion, would interfere with participation in the trial
  4. Patients with restricted mobility (e.g. wheelchair bound, or bed-ridden) that, in the Investigators opinion, would interfere with participation in the trial
  5. Patients with a known hypersensitivity to bisacodyl or any other ingredient in the study medication
  6. Patients with ileus, intestinal obstruction, acute surgical abdominal conditions (such as acute appendicitis and acute inflammatory bowel diseases), or severe dehydration
  7. Patients with anal fissures or ulcerative proctitis with mucosal damage
  8. Patients with known clinically significant abnormal electrolyte values
  9. Patients whose concomitant therapy includes an opioid medication (e.g. morphine, codeine)
  10. Constipation which, in the Investigators opinion, is caused by medication (e.g. anticholinergics)
  11. Patients who are not willing to discontinue the use of prohibited concomitant therapy
  12. Pre-menopausal women who:

    1. are nursing (breast-feeding) or who are pregnant OR
    2. who are of child-bearing potential and are not practicing an acceptable method of birth control, or do not plan to continue using this method throughout the study. Acceptable methods of birth control include:

      • transdermal patch
      • intra-uterine devices/systems (IUDs/IUSs)
      • oral, implantable or injectable contraceptives
      • sexual abstinence
      • sterilisation or a vasectomised partner
  13. Participation in another trial with an investigational product with 1 month of enrolment into this study
  14. Drug or alcohol abuse

Sites / Locations

  • 122.56.44032 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44018 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44029 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44023 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44011 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44009 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44025 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44012 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44024 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44003 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44017 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44014 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44006 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44033 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44002 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44004 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44020 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44007 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44005 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44010 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44021 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44022 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44001 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44026 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44019 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44015 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
  • 122.56.44008 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

Placebo Comparator

Arm Label

Bisacodyl 5 mg x 2 once daily

Placebo

Arm Description

patient to receive two enteric-coated tablets containing 5 mg bisacodyl

patient to receive two placebo-to-match enteric-coated tablets 5 mg bisacodyl

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Mean Number of Complete Spontaneous Bowel Movements (CSBMs) Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
A Complete Spontaneous Bowel Movement (CSBM) is a complete non-rescue medication-induced stool. The number of CSBMs in each of the 4 weeks was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer. The sum of the resulting numbers were divided by the number of weeks with data.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Number of CSBMs at Week 1
The number of CSBMs at week 1 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Number of CSBMs at Week 2
The number of CSBMs at week 2 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Number of CSBMs at Week 3
The number of CSBMs at week 3 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Number of CSBMs at Week 4
The number of CSBMs at week 4 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Mean Number of SBMs Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
A Spontaneous Bowel Movement (SBM) is a non-rescue medication-induced stool. The number of SBMs in each of the 4 weeks was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer. The sum of the resulting numbers were divided by the number of weeks with data.
Number of SBMs at Week 1
The number of SBMs at week 1 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Number of SBMs at Week 2
The number of SBMs at week 2 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Number of SBMs at Week 3
The number of SBMs at week 3 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Number of SBMs at Week 4
The number of SBMs at week 4 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time to the First SBM Following the First Dose of Study Medication (SM)
The time to the first SBM following the first dose of SM was captured by the eDiary. The time was censored by the time of intake of rescue medication (RM), the time of premature discontinuation or the end of treatment whatever was minimal.
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 in the Mean Number of CSBMs Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period Compared to Baseline
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 1 Compared to Baseline
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 2 Compared to Baseline
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 3 Compared to Baseline
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 4 Compared to Baseline
Number of Participants With a Mean of at Least 1 CSBM a Day Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Number of Participants With a Mean of at Least 3 CSBMs a Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Number of Premature Withdrawals Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 1 in the Treatment Period
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 2 in the Treatment Period
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 3 in the Treatment Period
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 4 in the Treatment Period
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 1 in the Treatment Period
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 2 in the Treatment Period
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 3 in the Treatment Period
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 4 in the Treatment Period
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 1
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 2
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 3
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 4
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 1
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 2
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 3
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 4
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 1
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 2
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 3
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 4
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 1
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 2
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 3
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 4
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 1
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 2
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 3
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 4
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Efficacy by the Investigator
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Efficacy by the Patient
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Tolerability by the Investigator
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Tolerability by the Patient
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Physical Functioning'
The dimension is a sum of 10 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems'
The dimension is a sum of 4 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Bodily Pain'
The dimension is a sum of 2 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'General Health'
The dimension is a sum of 5 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Vitality'
The dimension is a sum of 4 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Social Functioning'
The dimension is a sum of 2 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems'
The dimension is a sum of 3 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Mental Health'
The dimension is a sum of 5 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Mental Component Scale (MCS)
The MCS is a summary scale of the dimensions vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. The component scale is norm-based to a standard population. A higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Physical Component Scale (PCS)
The PCS is a summary scale of the subscales physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, and general health. The component scale is norm-based to a standard population. A higher score indicates a better health.
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Worries and Concerns'
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Physical Discomfort'
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Psychosocial Discomfort'
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Satisfaction'
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Overall Score
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Change From Baseline for Sodium (Normalized Value)
Normalized value: the reported laboratory value is converted by linear transformation to a preferred unit and then linear-transformed with respect to the standard reference range
Change From Baseline for Potassium (Normalized Value)
Normalized value: the reported laboratory value is converted by linear transformation to a preferred unit and then linear-transformed with respect to the standard reference range
Change From Baseline for Chloride (Normalized Value)
Normalized value: the reported laboratory value is converted by linear transformation to a preferred unit and then linear-transformed with respect to the standard reference range

Full Information

First Posted
September 5, 2007
Last Updated
December 13, 2013
Sponsor
Boehringer Ingelheim
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00526097
Brief Title
Dulcolax vs Placebo in Functional Constipation
Official Title
A Randomised, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel Group Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of 4 Weeks Treatment With Bisacodyl (Dulcolax) Tablets 10mg Administered Orally, Once Daily, in Patients With Functional Constipation.
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
December 2013
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
September 2007 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
June 2009 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
undefined (undefined)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Name of the Sponsor
Boehringer Ingelheim

4. Oversight

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 4 weeks treatment with bisacodyl (Dulcolax) tablets 10 mg to placebo in patients with functional constipation. In addition, the effect of treatment on quality of life and general health status was evaluated.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Constipation

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
Double
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
368 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Bisacodyl 5 mg x 2 once daily
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
patient to receive two enteric-coated tablets containing 5 mg bisacodyl
Arm Title
Placebo
Arm Type
Placebo Comparator
Arm Description
patient to receive two placebo-to-match enteric-coated tablets 5 mg bisacodyl
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Bisacodyl 10 mg
Intervention Description
2 x 5 mg bisacodyl once daily
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Placebo
Intervention Description
Placebo-to-match bisacodyl 10 mg (2 x 5 mg) once daily
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Mean Number of Complete Spontaneous Bowel Movements (CSBMs) Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Description
A Complete Spontaneous Bowel Movement (CSBM) is a complete non-rescue medication-induced stool. The number of CSBMs in each of the 4 weeks was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer. The sum of the resulting numbers were divided by the number of weeks with data.
Time Frame
4 Weeks
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Number of CSBMs at Week 1
Description
The number of CSBMs at week 1 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 1 in treatment period
Title
Number of CSBMs at Week 2
Description
The number of CSBMs at week 2 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 2 in treatment period
Title
Number of CSBMs at Week 3
Description
The number of CSBMs at week 3 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 3 in treatment period
Title
Number of CSBMs at Week 4
Description
The number of CSBMs at week 4 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 4 in treatment period
Title
Mean Number of SBMs Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Description
A Spontaneous Bowel Movement (SBM) is a non-rescue medication-induced stool. The number of SBMs in each of the 4 weeks was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer. The sum of the resulting numbers were divided by the number of weeks with data.
Time Frame
4 Weeks
Title
Number of SBMs at Week 1
Description
The number of SBMs at week 1 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 1 in treatment period
Title
Number of SBMs at Week 2
Description
The number of SBMs at week 2 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 2 in treatment period
Title
Number of SBMs at Week 3
Description
The number of SBMs at week 3 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 3 in treatment period
Title
Number of SBMs at Week 4
Description
The number of SBMs at week 4 was divided by the number of days where data were available in this week, multiplied by 7 and rounded off to the next integer.
Time Frame
Week 4 in treatment period
Title
Time to the First SBM Following the First Dose of Study Medication (SM)
Description
The time to the first SBM following the first dose of SM was captured by the eDiary. The time was censored by the time of intake of rescue medication (RM), the time of premature discontinuation or the end of treatment whatever was minimal.
Time Frame
Time of first dose of SM up to 4 weeks
Title
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 in the Mean Number of CSBMs Per Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period Compared to Baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 1 Compared to Baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 2 Compared to Baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 3 Compared to Baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With an Increase of at Least 1 CSBM at Week 4 Compared to Baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With a Mean of at Least 1 CSBM a Day Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Number of Participants With a Mean of at Least 3 CSBMs a Week Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Number of Premature Withdrawals Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 1 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 1 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 2 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 2 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 3 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 3 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Premature Withdrawals at Week 4 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 4 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication Over the 4 Weeks Treatment Period
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 1 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 1 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 2 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 2 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 3 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 3 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants Using Rescue Medication at Week 4 in the Treatment Period
Time Frame
Week 4 in the treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 1
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 2
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 3
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Straining' at Week 4
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 1
Description
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 2
Description
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 3
Description
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Stool Quality' at Week 4
Description
The score on the 7-point Bristol Stool Form Scale from Type 1 (hard, lumpy stool) to Type 7 (watery stool) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 1
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 2
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 3
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Sensation of Incomplete Evacuation' at Week 4
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 1
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 2
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 3
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Anorectal Obstructions/Blockade' at Week 4
Description
The score on a 5-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (absent) to 4 (very severe) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 1
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 2
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 3
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in treatment period
Title
Change From Baseline in the Mean Score for Constipation Symptom 'Manual Manoeuvre' at Week 4
Description
The score on a 2-point ordinal verbal rating scale from 0 (no) to 1 (yes) specifying patient's symptom assessment associated with each bowel movement was averaged over the day and then averaged over the days in the corresponding week.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Improved, Unchanged or Worsened Overall Satisfaction With Bowel Habits at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Improved / unchanged / worsened overall satisfaction is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (A very great deal satisfied) to 4 (Not at all satisfied) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Constipation at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of constipation is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Bloating at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal bloating is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 1 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 1 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 2 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 2 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 3 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 3 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Reduced, Unchanged or Increased Bothersomeness With Abdominal Discomfort at Week 4 in the Treatment Period in Comparison to Baseline
Description
Reduced / unchanged / increased bothersomeness of abdominal discomfort is a decreased / unchanged / increased score on a 5-point ordinal VRS: 0 (Not at all bothersome) to 4 (A very great deal bothersome) at the corresponding week in comparison to baseline
Time Frame
Baseline and week 4 in the treatment period
Title
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Efficacy by the Investigator
Description
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Efficacy by the Patient
Description
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Tolerability by the Investigator
Description
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Number of Participants With Respect to the Final Global Assessment of Tolerability by the Patient
Description
Final global assessment scale range: 1 (good) to 4 (bad), ordinal
Time Frame
4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Physical Functioning'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 10 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Role Limitation Due to Physical Problems'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 4 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Bodily Pain'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 2 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'General Health'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 5 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Vitality'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 4 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Social Functioning'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 2 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Role Limitation Due to Emotional Problems'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 3 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Dimension 'Mental Health'
Description
The dimension is a sum of 5 single items and then transferred to a scale ranging from 0 to 100. Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Mental Component Scale (MCS)
Description
The MCS is a summary scale of the dimensions vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. The component scale is norm-based to a standard population. A higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Physical Component Scale (PCS)
Description
The PCS is a summary scale of the subscales physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, and general health. The component scale is norm-based to a standard population. A higher score indicates a better health.
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Worries and Concerns'
Description
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Physical Discomfort'
Description
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Psychosocial Discomfort'
Description
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Subscale 'Satisfaction'
Description
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline in the PAC-QoL Overall Score
Description
The PAC-QoL is a 28-item (5-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (none of the time or not at all) to 4 (all of the time or extremely). Single item scores are inverted, if applicable, to ensure that a lower score indicates a better QoL
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline for Sodium (Normalized Value)
Description
Normalized value: the reported laboratory value is converted by linear transformation to a preferred unit and then linear-transformed with respect to the standard reference range
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline for Potassium (Normalized Value)
Description
Normalized value: the reported laboratory value is converted by linear transformation to a preferred unit and then linear-transformed with respect to the standard reference range
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks
Title
Change From Baseline for Chloride (Normalized Value)
Description
Normalized value: the reported laboratory value is converted by linear transformation to a preferred unit and then linear-transformed with respect to the standard reference range
Time Frame
Baseline and 4 weeks

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Male and female patients, aged 18 and above Suffering from functional constipation, according to their medical history, as defined by the Rome III diagnostic criteria , i.e.:Criteria fulfilled for the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months prior to diagnosis. Must include 2 or more of the following:: straining during at least 25% of the defecations lumpy or hard stools in at least 25% of the defecations sensation of incomplete evacuation for at least 25% of the defecations sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockade for at least 25% of the defecations manual manoeuvres to facilitate at least 25% of the defecations (e.g. digital evacuation, support of the pelvic floor) fewer than 3 defecations per week Loose stools are rarely present without the use of laxatives There are insufficient criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) Able and willing to complete a daily e-diary Able and willing to use the trial rescue medication Signed and dated written informed consent prior to enrolment into the study in accordance with GCP and local legislation At Visit 2, patients must comply with the following additional inclusion criteria to be eligible for entry into the treatment phase: Functional constipation is confirmed by e-diary data at the end of the baseline period: a. An average of less than 3 CSBMs per week, together with at least one of the following symptoms occurring at least 25% of the time: straining incomplete evacuation lumpy or hard stools (i.e. type 1 or type 2 stools) Compliant with the use of the e-diary throughout the baseline period (compliance is defined as completing 80% of the evening reports) Compliant with the use of rescue medication throughout the baseline period. Compliance is defined as follows: rescue medication may be used if there has not been a bowel movement for more than 72 hrs rescue medication may not be used on either day -1 or on the day of randomisation (day 1) Exclusion Criteria: Eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia, as a cause of excessive use of laxatives Patients whose constipation is caused by primary organic disease of the colon or pelvic floor Patients with metabolic disorders, neurological disorders, severe or psychiatric disorders, or any other significant disease or intercurrent illness (e.g. abdominal/gastrointestinal surgery) that, in the Investigators opinion, would interfere with participation in the trial Patients with restricted mobility (e.g. wheelchair bound, or bed-ridden) that, in the Investigators opinion, would interfere with participation in the trial Patients with a known hypersensitivity to bisacodyl or any other ingredient in the study medication Patients with ileus, intestinal obstruction, acute surgical abdominal conditions (such as acute appendicitis and acute inflammatory bowel diseases), or severe dehydration Patients with anal fissures or ulcerative proctitis with mucosal damage Patients with known clinically significant abnormal electrolyte values Patients whose concomitant therapy includes an opioid medication (e.g. morphine, codeine) Constipation which, in the Investigators opinion, is caused by medication (e.g. anticholinergics) Patients who are not willing to discontinue the use of prohibited concomitant therapy Pre-menopausal women who: are nursing (breast-feeding) or who are pregnant OR who are of child-bearing potential and are not practicing an acceptable method of birth control, or do not plan to continue using this method throughout the study. Acceptable methods of birth control include: transdermal patch intra-uterine devices/systems (IUDs/IUSs) oral, implantable or injectable contraceptives sexual abstinence sterilisation or a vasectomised partner Participation in another trial with an investigational product with 1 month of enrolment into this study Drug or alcohol abuse
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Boehringer Ingelheim
Organizational Affiliation
Boehringer Ingelheim
Official's Role
Study Chair
Facility Information:
Facility Name
122.56.44032 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Addlestone
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44018 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Ash Vale, Aldershot
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44029 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Ashford
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44023 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Atherstone
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44011 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Bedworth
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44009 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Bennetthorpe, Doncaster
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44025 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Bexhill on Sea
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44012 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Blackpool
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44024 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Burbage
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44003 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Cardiff
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44017 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Chesterfield
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44014 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Chippenham
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44006 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Chorley
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44033 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Dundee
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44002 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Edgbaston, Birmingham
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44004 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Glasgow
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44020 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Leamington Spa
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44007 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Liverpool
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44005 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Manchester
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44010 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Midsomer Norton
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44021 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Newtonabbey
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44022 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Paignton
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44001 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Slough
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44026 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Sunbury-on-Thames
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44019 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Swindon
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44015 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Warminster
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
122.56.44008 Boehringer Ingelheim Investigational Site
City
Wolverhampton
Country
United Kingdom

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Links:
URL
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/content/dam/internet/opu/clinicaltrial/com_EN/results/122/122.56_U09-2368.pdf
Description
Related Info
URL
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/content/dam/internet/opu/clinicaltrial/com_EN/results/122/122.56_literature.pdf
Description
Related Info

Learn more about this trial

Dulcolax vs Placebo in Functional Constipation

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs