Comparative antidotal efficacy of activated charcoal tablets, capsules and suspension in healthy volunteers
- 64 Downloads
The efficacy of several formulations of activated charcoal (AC) was compared by measuring the intestinal absorption of a solution of 1 g paracetamol administered 2 min before administration of 5 g AC as suspension (200 ml), tablets (40 of 125 mg) or capsules (25 of 200 mg). The suspension medium without AC was used as the control treatment. Based on the results of a pilot experiment, an 8 subject panel was used in a two 4×4 Latin square design.
All treatments with AC resulted in a statistically significant decrease in paracetamol absorption compared to the control treatment. The suspension was considerably and significantly more effective than the tablets or capsules. Treatment with tablets was slightly but significantly more effective than capsules. The intake of large numbers of tablets and capsules was difficult.
In the hospital AC suspensions are available. For first aid elsewhere, at home, at the working place or in the general practitioner's surgery a preservable and easily redispersible AC formulation would be preferable to the present solid forms.
Key wordsactivated charcoal antidotal efficacy healthy volunteers formulation paracetamol
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Hayden JW, Comstock EG (1975) Use of activated charcoal in acute poisoning. Clin Toxicol 8: 515–533Google Scholar
- 2.Neuvonen PJ (1982) Clinical pharmacokinetics of oral activated charcoal in acute intoxications. Clin Pharmacokinet 7: 465–489Google Scholar
- 3.Cooney DO (1980) Activated Charcoal. Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 4.Tsuchiya T, Levy G (1972) Drug adsorption efficacy of commercial activated charcoal tablets in vitro and in man. J Pharm Sci 62: 624–625Google Scholar
- 5.Otto U, Stenberg B (1973) Drug adsorption properties of different activated charcoal dosage forms in vitro and in man. Svensk Farm Tidskr 77: 613–615Google Scholar
- 6.Wijngaarden JR, Smith LHS (1982) Cecil's Textbook of medicine. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 7.Tebbet IR, Omile CI, Danesh B (1985) Determination of paracetamol, salicylic acid and acetyl salicylic acid in serum by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr 329: 196–198Google Scholar
- 8.Pearson ES, Hartley HO (1951) Charts of the power function for analysis of variance tests derived from the non-central F-distribution. Biometrica 38: 112–130Google Scholar
- 9.Slob W (1987) Strategies in applying statistics in ecological research. Free University Press, Amsterdam 112pp ThesisGoogle Scholar
- 10.Levy G, Gwilt PR (1972) Activated charcoal for acute acetaminophen intoxications. JAMA 219: 621Google Scholar
- 11.Dordoni B, Wilson RA, Thompson RPH, Williams R (1973) Reduction of absorption of paracetamol by activated charcoal and cholestyramine: a possible therapeutic measure. Br Med J 3: 86–87Google Scholar
- 12.Bainbridge CA, Kelly EL, Walking WD (1977) In vitro adsorption of acetaminophen onto activated charcoal. J Pharm Sci 66: 480–483Google Scholar
- 13.Mayersohn M, Perrier D, Picchioni AL (1977) Evaluation of a charcoal sorbitol mixture as an antidote for oral aspirin overdose. Clin Toxicol 11: 561–567Google Scholar
- 14.Cooney DO (1982) Effect of type and amount of carboxymethyl-cellulose on in vitro salicylate adsorption by activated charcoal. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 19: 367–376Google Scholar
- 15.Nakano NI, Shimamori Y, Umehashi M, Nakano M (1984) Preparation and drug absorption characteristics of activated carbon beads suitable for oral administration. Chem Pharm Bull 32: 699–707Google Scholar