OBJECTIVETo compare the difference among the combined method of oral administration of forlaxand acupoint embedding therapy, the simple acupoint embedding therapy and the simple oral administration of for-lax in the clinical efficacy on diabetic constipation.

METHODSOne hundred and fifty patients were randomized intoa comprehensive group, an acupoint embedding group and a forlax group, 50 cases in each one. In the acupointembedding group, the embedding therapy was applied to bilateral Tianshu (ST 25), Daheng (SP 15), Shangjuxu(ST 37) and Dachangshu (BL 25), once a week. In the forlax group, forlax (polyethylene glycol) was prescribedfor oral administration, once a day, 10 g each time. In the comprehensive group, the acupoint embedding therapyand forlax were combined and the methods were the same as the first two groups. The treatment for 4 weeks wasas one session, and 2 sessions were required in the three groups. Separately, in 4 weeks, 8 weeks of treatment and2 months after treatment, the constipation symptom scores were compared among the three groups. At the end of2 sessions of treatment, the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions were compared among the three groups. In2 months after treatment, the recurrence rate was compared among the three groups.

RESULTSThe total effectiverate was 98. 0% (49/50) in the comprehensive group, better than 86. 0% (43/50) in the acupoint embeddinggroup and 78. 0% (11/50) in the forlax group (both P<0. 01). In the 4 weeks and 8 weeks of treatment, the con-stipation symptom scores were reduced significantly as compared with those before treatment in the three groups(all P<0. 05). The results in the comprehensive group were lower than those in the other two groups (all P<0. 05). In the 4 weeks of treatment, the scores were not different significantly between the acupoint embedding group and the forlax group (P>0.05). In 8 weeks of treatment and 2 months after treatment, the scores in the acupoint embedding group were better tan those in the forlax group (all p<0.05). There were 2 cases of drug adverse reaction in the comprehensive group, 6 cases in the forlax group and 0 case in the acupoint embedding group. The recurrence rate was 8.1% (4/49) in the comprehensive group, lower than 32.6% (14/43) in the acupoint embedding group and 59.0% (23/39) in the forlax group (both P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONthe combined therapy of acupoint embedding and forlax achieves the better clinical efficacy on diabetic constipation and constipation symptom scores as compared with the simple acupoint embedding therapy and the oral administration of forlax the short-term efficacy of the simple acupoint embedding therapy is not different significantly from the simple forlax medication, but the long-term efficacy and safety are better than those of simple forlax medicaiton.