Glycine-based oral rehydration solution: Reassessment of safety and efficacy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Alanine-based oral rehydration therapy for infants with acute diarrhea
The Journal of Pediatrics, 1991
Twenty male infants less than I year of age with acute diarrhea and dehydration were randomly assigned to a study group and studied in blind fashion in a metabolic unit to assess the efficacy of the addition of 30 mmol/L alanine to the standard World Health Organization (WHO) oral rehydration solution (ORS). Patients were exclusively rehydrated with one of two types of ORS during the first 24 hours of treatment. On the second day, oral feedings were started with a lactose-free formula, and ORS was given to replace stool losses. Body weight, ORS, food intake, vomitus, stool, and urine output were recorded at 6-hour intervals. Blood was drawn at the time of admission, after rehydration, and at 24 and 48 hours of hospitalization to monitor blood gases and electrolytes. Rehydration was satisfactory in both groups of patients. ORS that contained alanine did not reduce the purging rates of the infants compared with those who received standard ORS. Clinically no adverse effect of the alanlne-based ORS was observed during hospitalization. None of the patients had significant hypernatremia or hyponatremia, and serum amino acid levels were not altered. These data show that the addition of 30 mmol/L alanine to the standard WHO-ORS produces no further improvement in the outcome of the infants with acute diarrhea compared with those fed the standard WHO-ORS.
Journal of health, …, 2007
This study assessed whether an oral rehydration solution (ORS) in which glucose is replaced by Lglutamine (L-glutamine ORS) is more effective than the standard glucose-based rehydration solution recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO-ORS) in reducing the stool volume and time to rehydrate in acute diarrhoea. In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in a Mexican hospital, 147 dehydrated children, aged 1-60 month(s), were assigned either to the WHO-ORS (74 children), or to the L-glutamine ORS (73 children) and followed until successful rehydration. There were no significant differences between the groups in stool output during the first four hours, time to successful rehydration, volume of ORS required for rehydration, urinary output, and vomiting. This was independent of rotavirus-associated infection. An L-glutamine-containing glucose-free ORS seems not to offer greater clinical benefit than the standard WHO-ORS in mildly-to-moderately-dehydrated children with acute non-cholera diarrhoea.
Journal of Health, Population, and Nutrition, 2007
This study assessed whether an oral rehydration solution (ORS) in which glucose is replaced by L-glutamine (L-glutamine ORS) is more effective than the standard glucose-based rehydration solution recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO-ORS) in reducing the stool volume and time to rehydrate in acute diarrhoea. In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in a Mexican hospital, 147 dehydrated children, aged 1–60 month(s), were assigned either to the WHO-ORS (74 children), or to the L-glutamine ORS (73 children) and followed until successful rehydration. There were no significant differences between the groups in stool output during the first four hours, time to successful rehydration, volume of ORS required for rehydration, urinary output, and vomiting. This was independent of rotavirus-associated infection. An L-glutamine-containing glucose-free ORS seems not to offer greater clinical benefit than the standard WHO-ORS in mildly-to-moderately-dehydrated children with acut...
Evidence-based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal, 2007
BackgroundDehydration associated with gastroenteritis is a serious complication. Oral rehydration is an effective and inexpensive treatment, but some physicians prefer intravenous methods.Dehydration associated with gastroenteritis is a serious complication. Oral rehydration is an effective and inexpensive treatment, but some physicians prefer intravenous methods.ObjectivesTo compare oral with intravenous therapy for treating dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis in children.To compare oral with intravenous therapy for treating dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis in children.Search strategyWe searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (March 2006), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006), EMBASE (1974 to March 2006), LILACS (1982 to March 2006), and reference lists. We also contacted researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations.We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (March 2006), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2006), EMBASE (1974 to March 2006), LILACS (1982 to March 2006), and reference lists. We also contacted researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations.Selection criteriaRandomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous rehydration therapy (IVT) with oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in children up to 18 years of age with acute gastroenteritis.Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous rehydration therapy (IVT) with oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in children up to 18 years of age with acute gastroenteritis.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Jadad score. We expressed dichotomous data as a risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT), and continuous data as a weighted mean difference (WMD). We used meta-regression for subgroup analyses.Two authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Jadad score. We expressed dichotomous data as a risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT), and continuous data as a weighted mean difference (WMD). We used meta-regression for subgroup analyses.Main resultsSeventeen trials (1811 participants), of poor to moderate quality, were included. There were more treatment failures with ORT (RD 4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1 to 7, random-effects model; 1811 participants, 18 trials; NNT = 25). Six deaths occurred in the IVT group and two in the ORT groups (4 trials). There were no significant differences in weight gain (369 participants, 6 trials), hyponatremia (248 participants, 2 trials) or hypernatremia (1062 participants, 10 trials), duration of diarrhea (960 participants, 8 trials), or total fluid intake at six hours (985 participants, 8 trials) and 24 hours (835 participants, 7 trials). Shorter hospital stays were reported for the ORT group (WMD -1.20 days, 95% CI -2.38 to -0.02 days; 526 participants, 6 trials). Phlebitis occurred more often in the IVT group (NNT 50, 95% CI 25 to 100) and paralytic ileus more often in the ORT group (NNT 33, 95% CI 20 to 100, fixed-effect model), but there was no significant difference between ORT using the low osmolarity solutions recommended by the World Health Organization and IVT (729 participants, 6 trials).Seventeen trials (1811 participants), of poor to moderate quality, were included. There were more treatment failures with ORT (RD 4%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1 to 7, random-effects model; 1811 participants, 18 trials; NNT = 25). Six deaths occurred in the IVT group and two in the ORT groups (4 trials). There were no significant differences in weight gain (369 participants, 6 trials), hyponatremia (248 participants, 2 trials) or hypernatremia (1062 participants, 10 trials), duration of diarrhea (960 participants, 8 trials), or total fluid intake at six hours (985 participants, 8 trials) and 24 hours (835 participants, 7 trials). Shorter hospital stays were reported for the ORT group (WMD -1.20 days, 95% CI -2.38 to -0.02 days; 526 participants, 6 trials). Phlebitis occurred more often in the IVT group (NNT 50, 95% CI 25 to 100) and paralytic ileus more often in the ORT group (NNT 33, 95% CI 20 to 100, fixed-effect model), but there was no significant difference between ORT using the low osmolarity solutions recommended by the World Health Organization and IVT (729 participants, 6 trials).Authors' conclusionsAlthough no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT, the ORT group did have a higher risk of paralytic ileus, and the IVT group was exposed to risks of intravenous therapy. For every 25 children (95% CI 14 to 100) treated with ORT one would fail and require IVT.Although no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT, the ORT group did have a higher risk of paralytic ileus, and the IVT group was exposed to risks of intravenous therapy. For every 25 children (95% CI 14 to 100) treated with ORT one would fail and require IVT.Plain language summaryChildren with dehydration due to gastroenteritis need to be rehydrated, and this review did not show any important differences between giving fluids orally or intravenouslyDehydration is when body water content is reduced causing dry skin, headaches, sunken eyes, dizziness, confusion, and sometimes death. Children with dehydration due to gastroenteritis need rehydrating either by liquids given by mouth or a tube through the nose, or intravenously. The review of 17 trials (some funded by drug companies) found that the trials were not of high quality; however the evidence suggested that there are no clinically important differences between giving fluids orally or intravenously. For every 25 children treated with fluids given orally, one child would fail and require intravenous rehydration. Further, the results for low osmolarity solutions, the currently recommended treatment by the World Health Organization, showed a lower failure rate for oral rehydration that was not significantly different from that of intravenous rehydration. Oral rehydration should be the first line of treatment in children with mild to moderate dehydration with intravenous therapy being used if the oral route fails. The evidence showed that there may be a higher risk of paralytic ileus with oral rehydration while intravenous therapy carries the risk of phlebitis (ie inflammation of the veins).Children with dehydration due to gastroenteritis need to be rehydrated, and this review did not show any important differences between giving fluids orally or intravenouslyDehydration is when body water content is reduced causing dry skin, headaches, sunken eyes, dizziness, confusion, and sometimes death. Children with dehydration due to gastroenteritis need rehydrating either by liquids given by mouth or a tube through the nose, or intravenously. The review of 17 trials (some funded by drug companies) found that the trials were not of high quality; however the evidence suggested that there are no clinically important differences between giving fluids orally or intravenously. For every 25 children treated with fluids given orally, one child would fail and require intravenous rehydration. Further, the results for low osmolarity solutions, the currently recommended treatment by the World Health Organization, showed a lower failure rate for oral rehydration that was not significantly different from that of intravenous rehydration. Oral rehydration should be the first line of treatment in children with mild to moderate dehydration with intravenous therapy being used if the oral route fails. The evidence showed that there may be a higher risk of paralytic ileus with oral rehydration while intravenous therapy carries the risk of phlebitis (ie inflammation of the veins).
MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports / Centers for Disease Control, 1992
Worldwide, diarrhea remains one of the most common illnesses among children. In the United States, children < 5 years of age experience > 20 million episodes of diarrhea each year, leading to several million doctor visits, 200,000 hospitalizations, and approximately 400 deaths. Much of this morbidity is due to the dehydration associated with acute watery diarrhea. Consequently, the proper management of children with acute diarrhea is important for all practitioners as well as for parents of small children. The development of oral therapy for the rehydration and maintenance of children with dehydrating diarrhea has become the worldwide mainstay of national diarrheal control programs. More recently, proper nutrition for children with diarrhea is viewed as an important adjunct to therapy, whereas antibiotics and other drugs play only a limited role. Intravenous therapy remains essential for diarrheal episodes associated with severe dehydration. This document reviews the proper ma...
International Journal of Medical Research and Review, 2016
Background: In clinical practice, nonspecific antidiarrheals are most commonly used by clinicians along with routine treatment to hasten the recovery and to give psychological reassurance. This study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of nonspecific antidiarrheal agents in reducing the need for intravenous rehydration in children with acute diarrhea. Materials and Methods: This was a prospective, observational study done in clinical settings for a period of 3 years at two pediatric clinics and at a tertiary care hospital. Children were divided into 5 treatment groups (viz, control, racecadotril, Mebarid, Diarex and loperamide) at the discretion of the pediatrician. One questionnaire was provided to parents to record the details about the course of diarrhea. Parents were sensitized to report any episode of complication or need for intravenous fluids. Results: The unscheduled need for intravenous fluids due to dehydration was significantly higher in control group compared to other groups {Control: 7.37%, Racecadotril : 1.71% Mebarid: 2.4%, Diarex: 0%, Loperamide : 0%)}. Conclusion: Present study suggests that use of nonspecific antidiarrheals may decrease the need for admission for intravenous fluids in children with acute diarrhea.
Therapeutic Enteral Formulas in Children
Indian Pediatrics, 2020
Purpose: A variety of enteral formulas for various diseases have become available in India in the last few years. Awareness among pediatricians about the availability and indications for these therapeutic formulas is low. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PUBMED and relevant data collected from all English language publications available. Data on the commercial preparations was sourced from the individual companies, the Diet 4 life initiative as well as FSSAI (Food safety and standards authority of India). Conclusions: Therapeutic enteral formulas, which are indicated in various disease states belong to four categories-lactose modified, hydrolyzed, MCT based and metabolic disease specific formulas. Lactose modified formulas which are used in temporary or permanent lactose intolerance and Galactosemia are either casein or soy protein based. Hydrolyzed formulas could be partially hydrolyzed, extensively hydrolyzed or amino acid based. Only extensively hydrolyzed formula should be recommended in milk protein allergy. Amino acid (elemental) formulas are mainly indicated in patients with diffuse intestinal mucosal disease. MCT formulas are used in chronic liver disease with cholestasis, and have 30 to 80% MCT. Formulas for inborn errors of metabolism are free of specific carbohydrate, amino acid or fatty acid. Proprietary formulas presently available in India with their specifications have been listed.
Journal of Pediatrics, 2001
Objective: We evaluated and compared the efficacy of the World Health Organization (WHO) oral rehydration solution (ORS) and 2 different formulations of reduced osmolarity ORSs in infants with persistent diarrhea. Study design: Infants with persistent diarrhea (n = 95) were randomized to 1 of the 3 ORSs: WHO-ORS (control, n = 32), a glucose-based reduced osmolarity ORS (RORS-G, n = 30), or a rice-based reduced osmolarity ORS (RORS-R, n = 31) for replacement of ongoing stool losses for up to 7 days. Major outcome measures were stool volume and frequency, ORS intake, and resolution of diarrhea. Results: Although there were variations from one study day to another, the stool volume was approximately 40% less in the reduced osmolarity ORS groups; consequently, these children required less ORS (22% for RORS-G and 27% for RORS-R groups). A higher proportion of children in the RORS-R groups also had resolution of diarrhea during the study period. No children in any of the treatment groups had hyponatremia. Conclusion: Reduced osmolarity ORS is clinically more effective than WHO-ORS and may thus be advantageous for use in the treatment of children with persistent diarrhea. (J Pediatr 2001;138:532-8)
Journal of Health Population and Nutrition, 2011
Antimicrobial peptides represent an important component of the innate immune defenses of living organisms, including humans. They are broad-spectrum surface-acting agents secreted by the epithelial cells of the body in response to infection. Recently, L-isoleucine and its analogues have been found to induce antimicrobial peptides. The objectives of the study were to examine if addition of L-isoleucine to oral rehydration salts (ORS) solution would reduce stool output and/or duration of acute diarrhoea in children and induce antimicrobial peptides in intestine. This double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted at the Dhaka Hospital of ICDDR,B. Fifty male children, aged 6-36 months, with acute diarrhoea and some dehydration, attending the hospital, were included in the study. Twenty-five children received L-isoleucine (2 g/L)-added ORS (study), and 25 received ORS without L-isoleucine (control). Stool weight, ORS intake, and duration of diarrhoea were the primary outcomes. There was a trend in reduction in mean±standard deviation (SD) daily stool output (g) of children in the L-isoleucine group from day 2 but it was significant on day 3 (388±261 vs 653±446; the difference between mean [95% confidence interval (CI) (-)265 (-509,-20); p=0.035]. Although the cumulative stool output from day 1 to day 3 reduced by 26% in the isoleucine group, it was not significant. Also, there was a trend in reduction in the mean±SD intake of ORS solution (mL) in the L-isoleucine group but it was significant only on day 1 (410±169 vs 564±301), the difference between mean (95% CI) (-)154 (-288,-18); p=0.04. The duration (hours) of diarrhoea was similar in both the groups. A gradual increase in stool concentrations of ß-defensin 2 and 3 was noted but they were not significantly different between the groups. L-isoleucine-supplemented ORS might be beneficial in reducing stool output and ORS intake in children with acute watery diarrhoea. A further study is warranted to substantiate the therapeutic effect of L-isoleucine.