Clinical evaluation of methylcellulose as a bulk laxative
- 152 Downloads
We studied a bulk laxative containing methylcellulose in a group of normal subjects as well as in a group of chronically constipated individuals. The initial study in normal subjects was performed to show that the compound could increase fecal weight without significant side effects. Fifty healthy subjects were studied. Methylcellulose in daily doses of 4 g demonstrated a statistically significant increase in fecal frequency, fecal water, and fecal solids. In the second phase, we studied a group of 59 chronically constipated individuals treated with daily doses of the laxative containing either 1, 2, or 4 g of methylcellulose or 3.4 g psyllium. All of these doses resulted in statistically significant increases in stool frequency, water content, and fecal solids. There was no increase in individual stool weight from any of the laxative doses. Methylcellulose, in a daily dose as low as 1 g, is an effective laxative.
Key wordsmethyl cellulose constipation bulk laxative psyllium
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Tainter ML: Methylcellulose as a colloid laxative. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 54:77–79, 1943Google Scholar
- 2.Knight HF, Hodge HC, Samsei EP, DeLap RE, McCallister DD: Studies on single oral doses of a high gel point methylcellulose. J Am Pharm Assoc 41:427–429, 1953Google Scholar
- 3.Lehman AJ: The colloidal laxative. Modern Hosp 64:98–102, 1945Google Scholar
- 4.Laxative drug products for over-the-counter human use: Tentative final monograph. Fed Regist 50:2124-2158, 1985Google Scholar
- 5.Bass P, Dennis S: The laxative effects of lactulose in normal and constipated subjects. J Clin Gastroenterol 3:23–28, 1981Google Scholar
- 8.Devroede G: Constipation: Mechanisms and management.In Gastrointestinal Disease, (eds). MH Sleisenger, JS Fordtran. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1983, pp 288–308Google Scholar
- 10.Connell AM, Hilton C, Irvine G, Lennard-Jones JE, Misiewicz JJ: Variation in bowel habit in two population samples. Br Med J 2:1095–1099, 1965Google Scholar