4.5 Article

Efficacy and safety of Gelsectan for diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: A randomised, crossover clinical trial

Journal

UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL
Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages 1093-1101

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2050640619862721

Keywords

Diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome; Gelsectan; pea protein and tannins; prebiotics; mucoprotectants; xyloglucan; xylo-oligosaccharide

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is highly prevalent and presents a clinical challenge. Gelsectan is a medical device containing xyloglucan (XG), pea protein and tannins (PPT) from grape seed extract, and xylo-oligosaccharides (XOS), which act together to protect and reinforce the intestinal barrier. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of XG + PPT + XOS in patients with diarrhoea-predominant IBS (IBS-D). Methods In this double-blind study, 60 patients were randomly assigned to receive XG + PPT + XOS or placebo for 28 days, then crossed over to the alternative treatment. Patients were followed for 60 days. Results At Day 28, a significantly higher proportion of patients starting treatment with XG + PPT + XOS than placebo (87 vs 0%; p = 0.0019) presented normal stools (Bristol Stool Form Scale type 3-4). At Day 56, a significantly higher proportion of patients who crossed over to XG + PPT + XOS than placebo (93% vs 23%; p = 0.0001) presented normal stools. In the group allocated to receive XG + PPT + XOS after placebo, benefits of XG + PPT + XOS were maintained during follow-up. Subjective assessments of abdominal pain, bloating, quality of life and general health indicated significant improvement with XG + PPT + XOS over placebo. There were no related adverse events. Conclusion XG + PPT + XOS effectively controlled diarrhoea and alleviated clinical symptoms in patients with IBS-D, and was well tolerated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available