We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial, Phase IV
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Randomised clinical trial: colestyramine vs. hydroxypropyl cellulose in patients with functional chronic watery diarrhoea.
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2015 June
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic bile acid malabsorption (BAM) has been suggested as a cause of chronic watery diarrhoea, with a response to colestyramine in 70% of patients. However, the efficacy of this drug has never been investigated in placebo-controlled trials.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of colestyramine as compared with hydroxypropyl cellulose in the treatment of functional chronic watery diarrhoea.
METHODS: Patients with chronic watery diarrhoea were randomly assigned to groups given colestyramine sachets 4 g twice daily (n = 13) or identical hydroxypropyl cellulose sachets (n = 13) for 8 weeks. The primary end-point was clinical remission defined as a mean of 3 or fewer stools per day during the week before the visit, with less than 1 watery stool per day. A secondary end-point was the reduction in daily watery stool number. SeHCAT test was performed in all patients, but an abnormal test was not a prerequisite to be included.
RESULTS: All included patients had a SeHCAT 7-day retention ≤20%. There were no statistical differences in the percentage of patients in clinical remission at week 8 between colestyramine and hydroxypropyl cellulose with either intention-to-treat (53.8% vs. 38.4%; P = 0.43) or per-protocol (63.6% vs. 38.4%; P = 0.22) analyses. However, the mean per cent decrease in watery stool number was significantly higher with colestyramine than with hydroxypropyl cellulose (-92.4 ± 3.5% vs. -75.8 ± 7.1%; P = 0.048). The rate of adverse events related to study drugs did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Colestyramine (4 g twice daily) is effective and safe for short-term treatment of patients with chronic watery diarrhoea presumably secondary to BAM. Clinical Trials Register number EudraCT 2009-011149-14.
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of colestyramine as compared with hydroxypropyl cellulose in the treatment of functional chronic watery diarrhoea.
METHODS: Patients with chronic watery diarrhoea were randomly assigned to groups given colestyramine sachets 4 g twice daily (n = 13) or identical hydroxypropyl cellulose sachets (n = 13) for 8 weeks. The primary end-point was clinical remission defined as a mean of 3 or fewer stools per day during the week before the visit, with less than 1 watery stool per day. A secondary end-point was the reduction in daily watery stool number. SeHCAT test was performed in all patients, but an abnormal test was not a prerequisite to be included.
RESULTS: All included patients had a SeHCAT 7-day retention ≤20%. There were no statistical differences in the percentage of patients in clinical remission at week 8 between colestyramine and hydroxypropyl cellulose with either intention-to-treat (53.8% vs. 38.4%; P = 0.43) or per-protocol (63.6% vs. 38.4%; P = 0.22) analyses. However, the mean per cent decrease in watery stool number was significantly higher with colestyramine than with hydroxypropyl cellulose (-92.4 ± 3.5% vs. -75.8 ± 7.1%; P = 0.048). The rate of adverse events related to study drugs did not differ between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Colestyramine (4 g twice daily) is effective and safe for short-term treatment of patients with chronic watery diarrhoea presumably secondary to BAM. Clinical Trials Register number EudraCT 2009-011149-14.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app