A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in the preparation of patients for colonoscopy.

One hundred and two patients were randomized to receive either oral sodium phosphate or standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) prior to colonoscopy in order to establish whether the much smaller volume of the former agent enhanced patient tolerance while maintaining or improving effectiveness and safety. Overall, patients found sodium phosphate preparation much easier to complete. In 37 patients who had had a previous colonoscopy prepared with Golytely, 100% of those now receiving sodium phosphate found it easier to complete and over 90% felt it caused less discomfort, compared with their previous experience with Golytely. Colonoscopists, unaware of the type of lavage solution used, scored the degree of colonic cleansing significantly higher for sodium phosphate-prepared colons compared with colons prepared with Golytely. Serial measurements of blood tests and postural pulse and blood pressure changes did not reveal any clinically significant changes in intravascular volume. Hyperphosphatemia was noted with sodium phosphate, but was transient, and no concomitant decrease in calcium was seen. Histological assessment for possible preparation-induced changes revealed no difference between the two agents. Sodium phosphate is significantly less expensive than Golytely. We conclude that, in the group of patients studied, sodium phosphate is a safe colonic cleansing agent that is better tolerated and more effective than Golytely.

Methods for the study of antidiarrheal agents. Study of commonly used protective and adsorbent agents.

Several agents were employed to induce diarrhea in squirrel monkeys: (1) diarrhaogenic diets, (2) various doses of cholera toxin, (3) prostaglandin derivatives, (4) bile, (5) lactulose, (6) phenolphthalein, (7) castor oil. Kaolin, pectin, Kaopectate and placebo were used as antidiarrheal treatment. Evaluation was based on (a) frequency, (b) consistency, (c) total and dry weight of the stools, and (d) electrolyte loss. The spectrum of procedures employed appeared to be suitable for the evaluation of antidiarrheal agents of the protective and adsorbent class.

Diagnosis of chronic pancreatic disease.

The diagnosis of pancreatic disease is difficult. The first step is clinical suspicion, based on the symptoms and signs. If pancreatic disease is suspected, investigation is necessary to prove this diagnosis. Investigation aims to answer two questions: a) is there pancreatic disease and b) if so, what type? The first question may be answered by demonstrating abnormal pancreatic function, using pancreatic function tests, whereas the second is answered by using techniques to demonstrate structural (anatomical) abnormalities of the pancreas. a) The methods to establish abnormal pancreatic function consist of 1. tests to demonstrate abnormal digestive capability, 2. tests to study pancreatic exocrine secretion, and 3. tests to study endocrine secretion. The tests of group 1 are: chemical fat balance study before and during enzyme replacement therapy, faecal nitrogen balance study, and the demonstration of either the malabsorption of vitamins A, D and K or the sequelae of their malabsorption (low serum calcium, high alkaline phosphatase, prolonged prothrombin time, etc.). Abnormal vitamin B12 absorption also may be present. 2. The tests designed to study pancreatic exocrine secretion are determination of the presence or absence of proteolytic enzymes in the stool, the secretion test, the pancreozymin stimulation test and the Lundh test. The serum amylase and lipase values are of little help in assessment of pancreatic function. 3. The tests to study endocrine function are the glucose tolerances test (which frequently gives abnormal results in pancreatic disease), and radioimmunoassays for insulin and gastrointestinal hormones (which may be increased in patients with functioning tumours of the islet cells). b) The techniques used to establish structural abnormalities of the pancreas are: duodenal cytology (during secretin tests), radiological techniques (abdominal survey films, barium meal, hypotonic duodenography, roentgenography of the biliary tract, barium enema, and angiography,) gastroscopy, duodensocopy, endoscopy and retrograde pancreatography, echography, scan and laparotomy. The relative value of these tests is discussed.