Absorption of folic acid from a softgel capsule compared to a standard tablet.

Consumption of 400 µg folic acid per day from fortified foods and/or supplements, plus food folate from a varied diet is recommended for women of childbearing potential to reduce the risk for neural tube defects during fetal development. This randomized crossover study was designed to evaluate the bioavailability of folic acid from a multivitamin softgel capsule vs a folic acid tablet in 16 premenopausal women (18 to 45 years of age). Participants were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of ∼1,000 µg folic acid in two tablets or ∼1,000 µg folic acid in a multivitamin softgel capsule, and then crossed over to receive the other study product ∼1 week later. Products were administered with a low-folate breakfast. Blood samples were collected predose (0 hour) and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 hours post-dose for serum folate analysis. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare responses between treatments. Data from the two sequence groups (n=8 per sequence) were pooled. Mean serum folate total and net incremental areas under the curve (AUC(0-8 hours)) were not significantly different between tablets and softgel capsule (AUC(0-8 hours) 214.9±11.2 hours×ng/mL [487±25.4 hours×nmol/L] and 191.6±13.3 hours×ng/mL [434.2±30.1 hours×nmol/L]; net incremental AUC(0-8 hours) 117.3±8.5 hours×ng/mL [265.8±19.3 hours×nmol/L] and 105.8±12.5 hours×ng/mL [239.7±28.3 hours×nmol/L], respectively), nor was maximum folate concentration (45.1±2.5 ng/mL [102.2±5.7 nmol/L] and 42.5±3.8 ng/mL [96.3±8.6 nmol/L], respectively). Time to peak folate concentration was significantly (P<0.001) delayed for the softgel capsule vs tablet (3.9±0.3 vs 1.7±0.2 hours, respectively). In conclusion, apparent bioavailability of folic acid was similar for the folic acid tablets and a multivitamin softgel capsule.

Safety and efficacy of a premixed, rice-based oral rehydration solution.

UNLABELLED: The authors compared the safety and efficacy of a ready-to-use, premixed, rice-based oral rehydration solution (R-ORS) with a glucose-based oral rehydration solution (G-ORS), each containing 75 mmol/L sodium, in Mexican children with acute diarrhea for less than 5 days. METHODS: One hundred eighty-nine boys 3 to 24 months old admitted to the hospital with acute diarrhea and signs of dehydration were randomly assigned to receive either G-ORS or R-ORS. Intake and output were measured every 3 hours. RESULTS: In the group treated with R-ORS, significantly fewer patients required supplemental intravenous fluids during the rehydration phase compared to the G-ORS group (1% v 8.7%; P < 0.01). Mean stool output, percent weight gain, ORS intake, urine output, and number of patients who vomited during rehydration were similar in the two groups. The mean total stool output after the first 24 hours of maintenance phase was significantly lower in the R-ORS group than in the G-ORS group. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found rice-based ORS to be safe, and its use reduced the rate of intravenous fluid therapy in comparison with the use of a glucose-based ORS.