AIM: Racecadotril is a specific enkephalinase inhibitor that exhibits intestinal antisecretory activity without affecting intestinal transit. Loperamide is an effective anti-diarrheal agent, but it usually induces con...AIM: Racecadotril is a specific enkephalinase inhibitor that exhibits intestinal antisecretory activity without affecting intestinal transit. Loperamide is an effective anti-diarrheal agent, but it usually induces constipation. This study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of racecadotril versus loperamide in the outpatient treatment of acute diarrhea in adults. METHODS: A two-center, randomized, parallel-group, single-blind study was carried out to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of racecadotril (100 mg thrics daily) and loperamide (2.0 mg 2 twics daily) in 62 adult patients suffering from acute diarrhea. The main efficacy criterion used was the duration of diarrhea after beginning the treatment (in hours). Other signs and symptoms were also evaluated. RESULTS: The clinical success rates for these anti-diarrheal treatments were 95.7% and 92.0% for racecadotril and loperamide respectively. Patients on racecadotril had a median duration of diarrhea of 19.5 h compared with a median of 13 h for patients on loperamide. Rapid improvement in anal burn and nausea was found for each drug. However, more patients on loperamide suffered from reactive constipation (29.0% vs 12.9%). Itching, another adverse event was notably higher in the racecadotril group (28.6% vs 0%). With regard to other adverse events, the two medications showed similar occurrence rates and similar concomitant medication usage rates. CONCLUSION: Racecadotril and loperamide are rapid, equally effective treatments for acute diarrhea in adults, but loperamide treatment is associated with a higher incidence of treatment-related constipation.展开更多
文摘AIM: Racecadotril is a specific enkephalinase inhibitor that exhibits intestinal antisecretory activity without affecting intestinal transit. Loperamide is an effective anti-diarrheal agent, but it usually induces constipation. This study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of racecadotril versus loperamide in the outpatient treatment of acute diarrhea in adults. METHODS: A two-center, randomized, parallel-group, single-blind study was carried out to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of racecadotril (100 mg thrics daily) and loperamide (2.0 mg 2 twics daily) in 62 adult patients suffering from acute diarrhea. The main efficacy criterion used was the duration of diarrhea after beginning the treatment (in hours). Other signs and symptoms were also evaluated. RESULTS: The clinical success rates for these anti-diarrheal treatments were 95.7% and 92.0% for racecadotril and loperamide respectively. Patients on racecadotril had a median duration of diarrhea of 19.5 h compared with a median of 13 h for patients on loperamide. Rapid improvement in anal burn and nausea was found for each drug. However, more patients on loperamide suffered from reactive constipation (29.0% vs 12.9%). Itching, another adverse event was notably higher in the racecadotril group (28.6% vs 0%). With regard to other adverse events, the two medications showed similar occurrence rates and similar concomitant medication usage rates. CONCLUSION: Racecadotril and loperamide are rapid, equally effective treatments for acute diarrhea in adults, but loperamide treatment is associated with a higher incidence of treatment-related constipation.
