|
|

Link:
Pharm/Biotech Resources
Title: Salt solution for colon cleansing
United States Patent: 6,946,149
Issued: September 20, 2005
Inventors: Cleveland; Mark vB. (Duxbury, MA)
Assignee: Braintree Laboratories, Inc. (Braintree, MA)
Appl. No.: 135857
Filed: April 30, 2002
Abstract
The field of colonic diagnostic and surgical procedures is hampered by
the lack of optimal means available to cleanse the colon. A compromise
between convenient, distasteful, solid or low volume, hyperosmotic solutions
which cause considerable fluid and electrolyte imbalances in patients and
large volume, difficult to consume, iso-osmotic solutions has had to be made
heretofore. This invention describes a low volume, hyper-osmotic solution
consisting of sulfate salts with and with out polyethylene glycol. Unlike
prior art, this composition is useful for the cleansing of the bowel and, in
lower volumes, as a laxative, without producing clinically significant
changes in bodily function.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
I now disclose easily and conveniently administered dosage formulations
of effective colonic purgatives.
The disclosed colonic purgative formulations provide safe and effective
purgative activity at lower dosages of salt than prior art sodium phosphate
tablets, solutions of phosphates and sulfates, or combinations thereof. In
addition, a lower volume of fluid is ingested and there are no clinically
significant changes in body electrolyte chemistry.
This colonic purgative can be administered with a minimum amount of patient
discomfort and is better tolerated than prior art purgatives.
The colonic purgative may include an effective amount of one or more sulfate
salts, Na2SO4, MgSO4, and K2SO4
have been used. Polyethylene glycol may also be advantageously added to the
colonic purgative composition.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF AN ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENT
There are two currently used methods used for colonic lavage. These are:
(1) gastrointestinal lavage with 4 liters of a balanced solution that causes
negligible net water or electrolyte absorption or secretion or (2) oral
ingestion of small volumes of concentrated (hypertonic) sulfate or sodium
phosphate solutions, e.g. Fleet Phospho-Soda, or the non-aqueous tablet
formulations of phosphates or salts, all of which cause clinically
significant effects on bodily chemistry.
Clinical trials have shown use of the 4 liter balanced solution to be safe
and efficacious. However, compliance is poor because of the large volume of
solution that must be rapidly ingested. Additionally, these large volume
solutions are not well tolerated by patients.
Use of the hypertonic sodium phosphate solutions is also efficacious in
cleansing the colon. However, use of hypertonic sodium phosphate has been
shown to cause upset in electrolyte balance including: hyperphosphatemia,
hypocalcemia, positive sodium balance, and negative potassium balance. For
example, in one published study the average serum phosphate concentration
rose from 2.8 to 6.5 mg/dL (Kolts et al., Am. J. Gastroenterology,
88:1218-1223, 1993), and in another some patients developed serum phosphate
concentrations as high as 11.6 mg/dL (Vanner et al., Am. J. Gastroenterology
85:422-427, 1990). The normal range for serum phosphate is generally
considered to be 2.6 to 4.5 mg/dL. Also, serum potassium fell to as low as
2.9 mEq/L, while the normal range is 3.4 to 5.4. In a third published study,
the Ca×P product rose from 35 to as high as 104, while the normal range is
generally 22-47 (DiPalma et al., Digestive Diseases and Sciences,
41:749-753, 1996).
Hypertonic phosphate gastrointestinal cleansing solutions have also been
associated with hypokalemia and hypocalcemia in some patients, resulting in
serious injury and even death (Ahmed et al. Am. J. Gastro.
1998;91:1261-1262).
While Fleet Phospho-Soda preparation, and other hypertonic phosphate colonic
lavages are generally considered safe for most healthy adults, they pose
significant risks for adverse reactions in patients with renal, cardiac or
hepatic diseases, and elderly patients in whom excess sodium absorption
might be dangerous. Because of these risks of severe adverse reactions,
renal and cardiac function should be evaluated and serum phosphate and serum
calcium should be carefully monitored in all patients using hypertonic
phosphate gastric lavage composition (Fleet and Visicol labeling). This
monitoring is inconvenient, adds to expense and is infrequently performed
resulting in dangerous incidents (Chan et al. Can. J. Gastro 1997;
11:334-338).
I have found a safe and effective small volume colonic purgative formulation
that avoids the problems of the prior art, using poorly absorbable sulfate
salts with a small quantity of polyethylene glycol. In performing this
research, my objective was to find a well tolerated orally administered
colonic purgative that was as effective as the well known hypertonic
phosphate ravages, that avoided the risks of upset of electrolyte balance in
patients.
I have found that hypertonic solutions of non-phosphate salts are effective
in producing colonic purgation. Addition of an osmotic laxative agent such
as polyethylene glycol improves the results in improved purgation and
reduces the amounts of salts required. Because it is administered in small
volumes, these formulations are better tolerated than formulations now used.
These formulations are as effective as colonic purgatives now used, with a
lower risk of adverse reactions.
Mixtures of sulfate salts that omit phosphates (which are avidly absorbed)
can be effective to produce colonic purgation. In particular, formulations
comprising effective amounts of one or more of the following sulfate salts
Na2SO4, MgSO4, and K2SO4
are effective. Dosage amounts of Na2SO4 from about
0.01 g to about 40.0 g can be effective to produce purgation. Doses of from
about 0.1 g to about 20.0 g may be advantageously used. Dosages of 1.0 to
10.0 g may be preferred. Dosage amounts of MgSO4 from about 0.01
g to about 40.0 g can be effective to produce purgation. Doses of from about
0.1 g to about 20.0 g may be advantageously used. Dosages of 1.0 to 10.0 g
may be preferred. Dosage amounts of K2SO4 from about
0.01 g to about 20.0 g can be effective to produce purgation. Doses of from
about 0.1 g to about 10.0 g may be advantageously used. Dosages of about 0.5
to about 5.0 g may be preferred. The formulation is advantageously a mixture
of the foregoing salts.
Addition of an osmotic laxative agent, such as polyethylene glycol (PEG)
improves the effectiveness of the above salt mixtures. Doses of PEG from
about 1.0 to about 100 g are effective to produce Taxation. Doses from about
10.0 g to about 50 g of PEG have been shown to be effective. A dose of about
34 g of PEG has been used.
For ease of administration, the above mixture of salts can be dissolved in a
convenient volume of water. A volume of less than one liter of water is well
tolerated by most patients. The mixture can be dissolved in any volume of
water, and volumes of between 100 and 500 ml are often convenient. Any
volume may be administered. Optimally, the effective dose may be divided and
administered, to the patient in two, or more administrations over an
appropriate time period. Generally, 2 doses administered of equal portions
of the effective dose, separated by 6 to 24 hours produce satisfactory
purgation
EXAMPLES
Subjects were otherwise healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 55. There
were no preferences or exclusions based on gender or ethnic background.
Dietary Preparation and Ingestion of Salt Solution
Each experiment began at midnight on the first day of a two day study
period, and was completed at noon on the next day. The subjects did not
consume any food or beverages after midnight on day 1. From 6 a.m. until 6
p.m. on day 1 the subjects consumed a clear liquid diet. Clear liquids
included strained fruit juices without pulp (apple, white grape, lemonade),
water, clear broth or bouillon, coffee or tea (without milk or non-dairy
creamer), carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, Kool-Aid® (or other
fruit flavored drinks), Jell-O® gelatin (without added fruits or toppings),
and ice PopSicles® fruit bars. Solid foods, milk, and milk products are not
allowed. The subjects kept a record of exactly what they consumed on day 1,
and they were asked to consume the same liquids at the same time if and when
they did subsequent studies with a different solution.
Subjects reported to the laboratory at 6 p.m. on day 1. At 7 p.m. they
ingested the first dose of concentrated salt solution, either Fleet Phospho-Soda
or the experimental solution, followed by 8 ounces of water. Eight ounces of
water was also ingested at 8, 9, and 10 p.m.
At 5 a.m. on day 2, a second dose of the concentrated salt solution was
ingested, followed by 8 ounces of water.
Formulation of Concentrated Salt Solutions:
Fleet Phospho-Soda (C. S. Fleet Co., Inc., Lynchburg, Va. 24506), 90 mL, was
added to 240 mL of water, for a volume of 330 mL. One half of this diluted
solution was ingested by the subjects on two occasions, at 7 p.m. on day 1
and again at 5 a.m. on day 2. Based on the manufacturer label, the 330 mL of
ingested Phospho-Soda solution contained NaH2PO4.H2O
(43.2 g) and Na2HPO40.7H2O (16.2 g).
The ingested experimental solutions were also 330 mL in volume, and their
composition is shown in the tables below. All salts were obtained from
Mallinckrodt (Paris, Ky. 40361) and Polyethylene glycol (PEG) was obtained
from J. T. Baker (Phillipsburg, N.J. 08865). One half of each experimental
solution was ingested by the subjects on two occasions, at 7 p.m. on day 1
and at 5 a.m. on day 2.
| TABLE 1 |
| The dosage of ingested salts (mmoles) were as follows: |
| NaH2PO4.H2O |
313 |
0 |
0 |
157 |
0 |
0 |
| Na2HPO4.7H20 |
60 |
0 |
0 |
30 |
0 |
0 |
| Na2SO4 |
0 |
100 |
125 |
142.5 |
142.5 |
142.5 |
| MgSO4 |
0 |
100 |
125 |
0 |
142.5 |
142.5 |
| K2SO4 |
0 |
0 |
12.5 |
23.75 |
23.75 |
20 |
| KCl |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| KHCO3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| TABLE 2 |
| The concentration of the salts expressed in millequivalents was: |
| Na |
433 |
200 |
250 |
502 |
285 |
285 |
| K |
0 |
10 |
25 |
48 |
48 |
40 |
| Mg |
0 |
200 |
250 |
0 |
285 |
285 |
| SO4 |
0 |
400 |
525 |
333 |
618 |
610 |
| PO4 |
11.6 |
0 |
0 |
5.8 |
0 |
0 |
| Cl |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| HCO3 |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Solution E also contained 34 g of Polyethylene glycol (PEG).
Observations and Measurements:
Body weight was measured at 6:45 p.m. on day 1, and at noon on day 2. Blood
pressure (lying and after standing for 30 seconds) was measured every two
hours, starting at 6:45 p.m. on day 1 and finishing at 11:45 a.m. on day 2.
Blood was drawn at 6:45 p.m. on day 1 and at 6 a.m., 8 a.m., 10 a.m. and 12
noon on day 2. Blood was analyzed for calcium, sulfate, magnesium,
phosphate, sodium, chloride, potassium, bicarbonate, osmolality, albumin,
total protein, BUN, creatinine, and hematocrit.
Each stool was quantitatively collected in separate containers and its
weight and consistency were measured. The degree to which the stool
contained fecal material was graded, using a scale from 0-5 (0 would be
similar to urine, 5 would be a large amount of solid fecal material). Stools
collected from 7 p.m. (day 1) until 5 a.m. (day 2) were pooled: this pool
represents the effects of the first dose of salts. Stools collected from 5
a.m. until 12 noon were pooled; this pool represents the effect of the
second dose of salts. The electrolyte composition of the two pooled
specimens was measured (osmolality, Na, K, Cl, HCO3, PO4,
S4, Ca and Mg).
Urine was quantitatively collected from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m. on day 1 (prior
to ingestion of salts), from 7 p.m. on day 1 until 5 a.m. on day 2, and from
5 a.m. on day 2 until 12 noon on day 2. Urine was analyzed for sulfate,
phosphate, calcium, magnesium and monovalent electrolytes.
Results
Study results are shown in tables 3 and 4.
| TABLE 3 |
| Fecal And Urine Analysis |
| Intake |
Output |
Change |
(mL) |
| Volume (mL) |
|
|
|
|
| Phospho-Soda |
1530 |
2403 |
-873 |
902 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
1530 |
1510 |
20 |
832 |
| B |
1530 |
2209 |
-679 |
789 |
| C |
1530 |
1868 |
-338 |
779 |
| D |
1530 |
2202 |
-672 |
639 |
| E |
1530 |
2729 |
-1199 |
780 |
| Sodium (mEq) |
| Phospho-Soda |
437 |
397 |
40 |
-80 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
200 |
198 |
2 |
89 |
| B |
200 |
302 |
-102 |
109 |
| C |
502 |
360 |
142 |
169 |
| D |
285 |
331 |
-46 |
132 |
| E |
285 |
369 |
-84 |
95 |
| Potassium (mEq) |
| Phospho-Soda |
0 |
54 |
-54 |
29 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
10 |
30 |
-20 |
19 |
| B |
20 |
41 |
-21 |
21 |
| C |
48 |
34 |
14 |
44 |
| D |
48 |
44 |
4 |
28 |
| E |
40 |
42 |
-2 |
24 |
| Chloride (mEq)) |
| Phospho-Soda |
0 |
41 |
-41 |
42 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
5 |
36 |
-31 |
53 |
| B |
0 |
71 |
-71 |
82 |
| C |
0 |
21 |
-21 |
81 |
| D |
0 |
71 |
-71 |
86 |
| E |
0 |
81 |
-81 |
62 |
| Bicartbonate (mEq) |
| Phospho-Soda |
0 |
19 |
-19 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
5 |
38 |
-33 |
0 |
| B |
0 |
61 |
-61 |
0 |
| C |
0 |
16 |
-16 |
0 |
| D |
0 |
89 |
-89 |
0 |
| E |
0 |
72 |
-72 |
0.9 |
| Phosphorous (g) |
| Phospho-Soda |
10.6 |
6.5 |
4.1 |
1.7 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
0 |
0.1 |
-0.1 |
0.3 |
| B |
0 |
0.2 |
-0.2 |
0.2 |
| C |
5.8 |
2.3 |
3.5 |
0.3 |
| D |
0 |
ND |
0 |
0.4 |
| E |
0 |
0.13 |
-0.1 |
0.3 |
| Calcium (mEq) |
| Phospho-Soda |
0 |
5 |
-5 |
1.7 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
0 |
9 |
-9 |
7 |
| B |
0 |
11 |
-11 |
5 |
| C |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
3 |
| D |
0 |
8 |
-8 |
8 |
| E |
0 |
17 |
-17 |
6 |
| Magnesium (mEq) |
| Phospho-Soda |
0 |
9 |
-9 |
1.8 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
200 |
156 |
44 |
6 |
| B |
200 |
193 |
7 |
5 |
| C |
0 |
3 |
-3 |
2 |
| D |
285 |
187 |
98 |
7 |
| E |
285 |
239 |
46 |
7 |
| Sulfate (mEq) |
| Phospho-Soda |
0 |
12 |
-12 |
11 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
400 |
285 |
115 |
65 |
| B |
420 |
370 |
50 |
55 |
| C |
333 |
210 |
123 |
74 |
| D |
618 |
433 |
185 |
63 |
| E |
610 |
478 |
132 |
58 |
| PEG (g) |
| Phospho-Soda |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Experimental Solution |
0 |
| A |
0 |
0 |
| B |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
| C |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
| D |
0 |
0 |
|
0 |
| E |
34 |
29.1 |
|
4.9 |
| TABLE 4 |
| Serum Electrolyte and Mineral Data |
| |
645 PM |
600 AM |
800 AM |
10 AM |
1200 PM |
| Sodium (mEq/L) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Phospho-Soda |
138 |
141 |
142 |
143 |
143 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
138 |
139 |
140 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
140 |
142 |
141 |
142 |
142 |
| C |
141 |
142 |
144 |
144 |
144 |
| D |
136 |
139 |
138 |
138 |
138 |
| E |
140 |
141 |
142 |
141 |
142 |
| Potassium (mEq/L) |
| Phospho-Soda |
4.9 |
3.7 |
3.9 |
4.0 |
3.9 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
5.4 |
4.0 |
4.2 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
5.7 |
4.4 |
4.7 |
4.9 |
4.4 |
| C |
5.5 |
4.2 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
4.5 |
| D |
7.3 |
4.2 |
4.6 |
4.2 |
4.2 |
| E |
4.6 |
4.0 |
4.3 |
4.4 |
4.3 |
| Chloride (mEq/L)) |
| Phospho-Soda |
103 |
105 |
107 |
107 |
107 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
107 |
104 |
106 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
107 |
106 |
108 |
108 |
107 |
| C |
106 |
107 |
109 |
110 |
109 |
| D |
108 |
106 |
107 |
107 |
106 |
| E |
105 |
105 |
107 |
107 |
107 |
| Bicartbonate (mEq/L) |
| Phospho-Soda |
23 |
23 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
21 |
23 |
23 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
20 |
21 |
19 |
21 |
20 |
| C |
23 |
22 |
22 |
22 |
23 |
| D |
24 |
23 |
21 |
21 |
21 |
| E |
23 |
24 |
23 |
22 |
23 |
| Sulfate (mEq/L) |
| Phospho-Soda |
1.63 |
1.68 |
1.52 |
1.75 |
1.70 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
1.16 |
1.79 |
1.84 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
1.92 |
1.75 |
1.83 |
1.58 |
1.83 |
| C |
1.38 |
1.86 |
1.54 |
1.70 |
1.78 |
| D |
0.88 |
1.30 |
1.62 |
1.46 |
1.30 |
| E |
1.36 |
1.85 |
2.01 |
1.87 |
1.62 |
| Phosphorous (mg/dL) |
| Phospho-Soda |
3.3 |
6.5 |
7.9 |
6.3 |
5.4 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
2.6 |
3.1 |
2.8 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
2.8 |
3.1 |
2.8 |
2.8 |
2.9 |
| C |
3.1 |
5.9 |
6.6 |
5.8 |
4.4 |
| D |
3.2 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
2.8 |
| E |
3.3 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
3.2 |
3.2 |
| Calcium (mg/dL) |
| Phospho-Soda |
9.2 |
9.1 |
8.9 |
9.0 |
9.1 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
9.2 |
9.3 |
9.5 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
9.4 |
9.6 |
9.4 |
9.5 |
9.5 |
| C |
9.4 |
9.3 |
9.3 |
9.2 |
9.5 |
| D |
8.9 |
9.1 |
8.8 |
9.0 |
8.7 |
| E |
9.3 |
9.5 |
9.7 |
9.6 |
9.6 |
| Ca × P |
| Phospho-Soda |
30.2 |
59.7 |
70.7 |
56.5 |
48.9 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
23.9 |
28.8 |
26.6 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
26.3 |
29.8 |
26.3 |
26.6 |
27.6 |
| C |
29.1 |
54.9 |
61.4 |
53.4 |
41.8 |
| D |
28.5 |
24.6 |
23.8 |
24.3 |
24.4 |
| E |
30.9 |
31.5 |
32.2 |
30.4 |
30.3 |
| Magnesium (mg/dL) |
| Phospho-Soda |
2.0 |
2.1 |
2.1 |
2.2 |
2.2 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
2.3 |
2.6 |
2.6 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
2.3 |
2.7 |
2.6 |
2.7 |
2.7 |
| C |
2.3 |
2.4 |
2.3 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
| D |
1.8 |
2.0 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
1.9 |
| E |
2.0 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
2.5 |
2.4 |
| Hematocrit |
| Phospho-Soda |
40.0 |
42.3 |
41.8 |
43.8 |
43.1 |
| Experimental Solution |
| A |
38.5 |
39.8 |
39.3 |
ND |
ND |
| B |
37.8 |
41.1 |
39.8 |
39.5 |
39.5 |
| C |
35.3 |
36.8 |
37.0 |
36.7 |
37.2 |
| D |
37.1 |
39.7 |
40.1 |
40.2 |
40.8 |
| E |
38.8 |
40.8 |
41.7 |
42.8 |
42.9 |
As indicated in table 3, stool volume averaged 2403 mL in three subjects who
ingested the standard dose of Phospho-Soda. Table 4 shows that this was
associated with a clinically significant rise in serum phosphate, a
clinically significant fall in serum calcium, a clinically significant rise
in serum calcium×phosphate product (Ca×P), and a large net gastro intestinal
potassium loss of 54 mEq. Serum potassium also fell, but generally stayed in
the normal range. However, all subjects had a net negative balance in
potassium. Serum phosphorus increased markedly, well outside of the normal
range.
Solution A contained 100 mmoles of Na2SO4 and 100
mmoles of MgSO4, as well as small amounts of KCl and KHCO3
to replace anticipated K, Cl, and HCO3 losses. After
ingestion of solution A, stool output (1500) was short of the Phospho-Soda
output benchmark (2403 ml).
For solution B K2SO4 was substituted for KCl and KHCO3;
the Na2SO4 and MgSO4 contents were each
increased to 125 mmoles. Fecal output rose with solution B, to 2209 mL, but
as shown in table 4 the potassium losses were unacceptably high.
The effect of adding phosphate salts was investigated in solution C which
contained one half of the amount of phosphate in the Fleet Phospho-Soda
protocol, and 142.5 mmoles of Na2SO4. This solution
resulted in 1868 mL of fecal output. However, there was substantial net
sodium absorption from this solution, and the serum Ca×P product increased
dramatically due to absorbed phosphate. We therefore decided that phosphate
should be excluded completely from further experimental solutions.
Solution D contained 142.5 mmoles of both Na2SO4 and
MgSO4, and 23.75 mmoles of K2SO4. This
solution resulted in a stool volume of 2202 mL, which was slightly (180 mL)
short of benchmark. Electrolyte changes were clinically insignificant with
this formulation. A further increase in the ingested amounts of salts would
likely be effective but, we were concerned about taste problems.
For solution E, PEG 3350 was added and the K2SO4
content reduced slightly as compared to solution D. In two subjects,
solution E produced an average fecal output that slightly exceeded the
Phospho-Soda benchmark, and the taste was acceptable. This solution caused
no increase in Ca×P product, and its effect on potassium balance appeared to
be close to zero. A small clinically insignificant change, was seen for
magnesium, which stayed within the normal range of 1.4 to 3.1 mg/dL. Changes
in sodium, chloride, sulfate and bicarbonate balance with this solution were
considered to be of no clinical significance.
There are two ways to estimate the degree to which the poorly absorbable
solutes were absorbed by the intestine. The first involves subtraction of
fecal output from oral intake. This method assumes that anything not
excreted in the stool by the end of the experiment was absorbed. Using this
method, the absorption of phosphate after ingesting of Fleet Phospho-soda
was 4.0 grams, or 38% of the ingested phosphate load.
The absorption of sulfate after ingestion of solution E was 165 mEq, or 27%
of the ingested load. However, the serum sulfate concentration remained well
below the level at which calcium sulfate precipitates form, therefore
calcium levels remained unchanged. The absorption of magnesium after
ingestion of solution E was 66 mEq, or 23% of the ingested load. The second
method that can be used involves changes in urine output of the solutes.
When a phosphate-free solution was ingested (solution E), urine phosphate
excretion was 0.4 g, whereas when 10.6 g of phosphate were ingested (Fleet
Phospho-Soda), urine phosphate excretion was 2.1 g (=1.7 g); thus, 16% of
the ingested phosphate appeared in the collected urine. By a similar
calculation, 10% of ingested sulfate and 2% of ingested magnesium appeared
in the collected urine. By both methods, the intestinal absorption of the
ingested electrolytes occurred in the following order of magnitude: P>SO4>Mg.
The volume of fecal fluid output, the quality of colonic cleansing, side
effects, and weight loss were similar with Fleet Phospo-Soda and Solutions D
and E. Both solutions were unpleasant to ingest, but neither had a bad
aftertaste. The highest observed Ca×P product varied from 62 to 76 with
Phospho-Soda which is well in excess of the level at which calcium-phosphate
precipitates form. For solution E Ca×P was from 30 to 37. The Phospho-Soda
preparation caused a net gastrointestinal loss of 54 mEq of potassium,
whereas solutions D and E caused essentially no loss or gain of potassium.
The serum phosphate concentration increased more than 2-fold after ingestion
of Phospho-Soda, whereas the serum sulfate concentration rose only slightly
after ingestion of solution E. There were no significant changes in serum
magnesium concentration.
Solution E contains three sulfate salts (Na2SO4, K2SO4
and MgSO4) as well as polyethylene glycol. Sulfate, magnesium and
polyethylene glycol are poorly absorbed, and ingestion of this solution
therefore induces osmotic diarrhea. The sodium content of solution E is less
than the sodium content of Phospho-Soda, and solution E contains potassium
whereas Phospho-Soda does not. Solution E and Fleet Phospho-Soda appear to
provide equivalent colonic cleansing. However, in contrast to Phospho-Soda,
solution E does not cause serum phosphate concentration to rise and does not
cause a net gastrointestinal loss of potassium.
Both solutions were associated with approximately 2.5 kg loss in body weight
which can be explained by higher water output (in both stool and in urine)
than water intake by mouth. To prevent this weight loss, the subjects would
need to ingest an additional 2.5 kg of water, which would increase total
water intake to approximately 4 liters. This might be advisable for
protection of body fluid volume, but it might make the method of cleansing
less attractive and less convenient. There were no changes in the vital
signs of our subjects, indicating that the observed body water losses caused
by ingestion of the two solutions are well tolerated by normal people.
The Phopho-Soda phosphate solution and solutions D and E produce similar
volumes of osmotic diarrhea, and the quality of colon cleansing (as judged
by examination of fecal fluid) with the two solutions were similar.
Presumably, both solutions will be associated with some residual colonic
fluid, which is not a problem during colonoscopy since such fluid is readily
aspirated via the suction lumen of the colonoscope. However, for virtual
colonscopy it is desirable that the colon be dry, and to this end of Ducolax
suppository is often employed shortly before CT scanning is performed.
Claim 1 of 23 Claims
1. A composition for inducing purgation of the colon of a patient, the
composition comprising a small volume of an aqueous hypertonic solution
which comprises an effective amount of one or more salts selected from the
group consisting of Na2SO4, MgSO4, and K2SO4,
and an effective amount of PEG, wherein the composition does not produce
any clinically significant electrolyte shifts and does not include
phosphate.
____________________________________________
If you want to learn more
about this patent, please go directly to the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office Web site to access the full
patent.
|