Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg). METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. RESULTS: Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively). CONCLUSION: Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.

Monitoring of 29 weight loss compounds in foods and dietary supplements by LC-MS/MS.

Because of the rapid growth in dietary supplement availability and public concern for weight control, the investigation of foods and various dietary supplements illegally adulterated with weight loss compounds has become increasingly important. A total of 29 weight loss compounds, including sennoside, sibutramine, ephedrine and their analogues, found to be adulterated in foods and dietary supplements were simultaneously examined by LC-MS/MS. The 188 samples were collected between 2009 and 2012 in South Korea, and method validation was performed to determine the adulterants to the weight loss compounds. LODs, LOQs and linearity ranged from 0.03 to 7.5 ng ml⁻¹, from 0.08 to 30.00 ng ml⁻¹, and from 0.990 to 0.999, respectively. The results showed that nine weight loss compounds, namely bisacodyl, desmethylsibutramine, didesmethylsibutramine, ephedrine, fluoxetine, pseudoephedrine, sennoside A, sennoside B and sibutramine, were detected in 62 of all collected samples and were found in order of frequency as follows: sibutramine, 25.7%; sennoside A, 22.9%; sennoside B, 20.0%; fluoxetine, 8.6%; desmethylsibutramine, 7.1%; bisacodyl, ephedrine, and pseudoephedrine, 4.3%; and didesmethylsibutramine, 2.9%. Sibutramine, which was the most frequently found adulterant, ranged in levels from 0.03 to 132.40 mg g⁻¹ (2010), from 0.88 to 76.2 mg g⁻¹ (2011), and from 0.07 to 0.24 mg g⁻¹ (2012). Although the concentrations of most compounds ranged widely, some compounds such as bisacodyl and fluoxetine were found at high concentrations in several samples.

Pilot study of the feasibility and effectiveness of a natural laxative mixture.

We sought to determine the effect of a natural laxative mixture compared with daily prescribed laxatives on bowel movement frequency in elderly long-term care residents. Secondary endpoints included ease of administration and costs of the natural laxative. A randomized controlled trial comparing the effect of the Beverley-Travis natural laxative mixture to prescribed laxatives was conducted over an 8-week period. Subjects were randomized to treatment and control groups; control subjects continued on regularly prescribed laxatives, and treatment group subjects discontinued prescribed laxatives and received 2 tablespoons of the natural laxative mixture twice a day for the remaining 4-week period. Bowel movement frequency and consistency were collected, and ease of natural laxative administration as well as costs associated with use of the natural or prescribed laxatives were calculated. The study included 45 residents, with 34 completing the 8-week study period (16 treatment group subjects and 18 control subjects). Treatment group subjects had a significant increase in average number of bowel movements from 15.5 to 22.2 (P = .007) following initiation of the natural laxative, and no difference in bowel movement frequency was observed among control subjects (P = NS). The natural laxative mixture was rated as "easy" or "very easy" to administer by 90%-92% of nurses, and cost savings of $103.04 was estimated. The Beverley-Travis natural laxative mixture, given at a dosage of 2 tablespoons twice daily, is easy to use, cost-effective, and more effective than daily prescribed laxatives at producing normal bowel movements.

Comparison of home lead dust reduction techniques on hard surfaces: the New Jersey assessment of cleaning techniques trial.

High efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA) vacuums, which collect particles > 0.3 micro m, and trisodium phosphate (TSP), a detergent claimed to selectively remove lead, have been included in the HUD Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead Based Paint Hazards in Housing without systematic validation of their effectiveness. At the time the study was initiated, both HEPA vacuums and TSP were relatively expensive, they were not readily found in urban retail centers, and there were environmental concerns about the use and disposal of high-phosphate detergents. A randomized, controlled trial was conducted in urban high-risk homes in northern New Jersey to determine whether a more readily available and less expensive low-phosphate, non-TSP detergent and non-HEPA vacuum could perform as well as TSP and a HEPA vacuum in a cleaning protocol. Homes were randomized to one of three cleaning methods: TSP/HEPA vacuum, TSP/non-HEPA vacuum, or non-TSP/non-HEPA vacuum. Change in log-transformed lead loading was used in mixed models to compare the efficacy of the three cleaning techniques separately for uncarpeted floors, window sills, and window troughs. After we adjusted for baseline lead loading, the non-HEPA vacuum produced larger reductions on hard floors [19%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3-38%], but the HEPA vacuum produced larger reductions on window sills (22%; 95% CI, 11-32%) and larger reductions on window troughs (16%; 95% CI, -4 to 33%). The non-TSP produced larger reductions on window troughs (21%; 95% CI, -2 to 50%), but TSP produced larger reductions on hard floors (5%; 95% CI, -12 to 19%) and window sills (8%; 95% CI, -5 to 20%). TSP/HEPA produced larger reductions on window sills (28%; 95% CI, 18-37%) and larger reductions on window troughs (2%; 95% CI, -24 to 23%), whereas the non-TSP/non-HEPA method produced larger reductions on hard floors (13%; 95% CI, -5 to 34%). Because neither vacuum nor detergent produced consistent results across surface types, the use of low-phosphate detergents and non-HEPA vacuums in a temporary control measure is supported.

Assessment of the genotoxic risk from laxative senna products.

Laxative senna products and several of their specific components have been submitted to a large number of genetic tests. While most studies gave negative responses, results from some of the studies suggest that components of senna products, particularly emodin and aloe-emodin, have genotoxic activity. Assessment of the genotoxicity profile of these substances, in light of other data from animal and human metabolism or kinetic studies, human clinical trials and rodent carcinogenicity studies do not support concerns that senna laxatives pose a genotoxic risk to humans when consumed under prescribed use conditions.