Turning off the diarrhea: the role of food and ORS. Randomized, controlled, clinical trial of rice versus glucose oral rehydration solutions in infants and young children with acute watery diarrhoea. A randomized double-blind clinical trial of a maltodextrin-containing oral rehydration solution in acute infantile diarrhea. Evaluation of oral hypo-osmolar glucose-based and rice-based oral rehydration solutions in the treatment of cholera in children. Safety and efficacy of a premixed, rice-based oral rehydration solution. Food-based oral rehydration salt solution for acute childhood diarrhoea. Is oral rice electrolyte solution superior to glucose electrolyte solution in infantile diarrhoea? Effects of food with two oral rehydration therapies: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Efficacy of mung bean (lentil) and pop rice based rehydration solutions in comparison with the standard glucose electrolyte solution. Efficacy of standard glucose-based and reduced-osmolarity maltodextrin-based oral rehydration solutions: effect of sugar malabsorption. Rice-starch oral rehydration therapy in neonates and young infants. Comparative efficacy of rice-based and glucose-based oral rehydration salts plus early reintroduction of food. Safety and efficacy of a rice-based oral rehydration salt solution in the treatment of diarrhea in infants less than 6 months of age. Efficacy of a packaged rice oral rehydration solution among children with cholera and cholera-like illness. [Oral rehydration with a plantain flour-based solution precooked with standardized electrolytes]. Rice powder oral rehydration solution as an alternative to glucose electrolyte solution. Comparative efficacy of three different oral rehydration solutions for the treatment of dehydrating diarrhoea in children. A randomised, double-blind clinical trial of a maltodextrin containing oral rehydration solution in acute infantile diarrhoea. Is rice based oral rehydration therapy effective in young infants? Controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of rice powder-based oral rehydration solution on the outcome of acute diarrhea in infants. Comparative study of rice-based oral rehydration salt solution versus glucose-based oral rehydration salt solution (WHO) in children with acute dehydrating diarrhoea. [Oral rice-based rehydration solution (SRO), alternative of SRO of WHO in acute diarrhea in malnourished patients]. A randomized controlled trial of glucose versus amylase resistant starch hypo-osmolar oral rehydration solution for adult acute dehydrating diarrhea. Efficacy of oral hyposmolar glucose-based and rice-based oral rehydration salt solutions in the treatment of cholera in adults. Treatment of acute infantile diarrhoea with a commercial rice-based oral rehydration solution. Comparison of an oral rice-based electrolyte solution and a glucose-based electrolyte solution in hospitalized infants with diarrheal dehydration. Amylase-resistant starch plus oral rehydration solution for cholera. Cereal-based oral rehydration solutions in Sudanese children with diarrhoea: a comparative clinical trial of rice-based and sorghum-based oral rehydration solutions. Uncooked rice powder in oral rehydration solution: an alternative to glucose or cooked rice powder. A controlled trial comparing the efficacy of rice-based and hypotonic glucose oral rehydration solutions in infants and young children with gastroenteritis. Rice-based oral rehydration solution decreases the stool volume in acute diarrhoea.
Ninety-three boys aged 5 years or less who had diarrhea due to Vibrio cholerae were randomly assigned to treatment with glucose oral rehydration salt (ORS) or rice-based ORS. For the first 24 h, ORS only was given to all the patients. During the next 24 h, ORS and normal food were given. The efficacy of the two types of ORS was compared in terms of ORS intake, stool output, change in hematocrit reading, serum specific gravity, and increase in body weight. At the end of the first 24 h of treatment, a 50% reduction in ORS intake and stool output was observed in the 47 patients randomly assigned to receive rice ORS as compared with the 46 patients who received glucose ORS. During the second 24 h of treatment, a significant reduction in the stool output was noticed in the glucose ORS group, making the efficacy of glucose ORS equal to that of rice ORS. The study suggests that normal food can impart some of the superiority of "super" ORS to standard glucose ORS with regard to reduction of stool volume. A randomized clinical trial was carried out to compare a packaged ready-to-mix rice oral rehydration solution (ORS) to the standard glucose ORS for the treatment of childhood diarrhoea. Children were of either gender, aged 3-35 months, presenting with a history of watery diarrhoea for 72 h or less. The main outcomes examined were stool output, ORS intake, duration of diarrhoea and nutritional recovery during follow-up at 16 d of illness. Stool output in the first 24 h (106 vs 107 g kg(-1)), ORS intake in clinic (93 vs 102 ml per motion) and duration of diarrhoea (88 h vs 81 h) were similar in the two treatment groups. The few episodes that became persistent were similar (2%) in the two groups. The weight gain during follow-up was similar in the two ORS groups. A double-blind, randomized controlled study was used to compare the efficacy and safety of an oral rehydration solution either with minimally hydrolyzed maltodextrins or the standard recommended glucose. One hundred twenty pediatric patients with acute watery diarrhea (60 in each group) were studied, but only 116 patients were included in the final analysis. After rehydration, outcome variables did not differ significantly at p < 0.05. Mean duration of diarrhea was 52.5 +/- 32.2 h for the control group (median, 50.8 h) and 57.2 +/- hours for the study group (median, 45.3 hours). Comparisons of the mean stool output, weight gain, and ORS intake on the 24th h and from admission to discharge were not statistically significant. Differences in laboratory parameters consisting of mean serum sodium, potassium, total CO2, hematocrit, plasma total solids, urine specific gravity, and random blood sugar were likewise not significant. Differences in stool pH and reducing sugars were statistically significant; however, the observed values were still within normal range. All laboratory values improved upon rehydration. Replacement of glucose with maltodextrins did not offer added advantages in reducing the duration and severity of diarrhea. In a randomized controlled clinical trial, the efficacy of a low-sodium low-glucose oral rehydration solution (ORS) and a low-sodium rice-based ORS was compared with standard WHO glucose ORS in the treatment of severe cholera in children aged 2-10y. In total, 120 children were evaluated for the study, of whom 58 patients were positive for Vibrio cholerae and were included in the study. Of these 58 cases, 19 received rice-based hypo-osmolar ORS, 20 received WHO-ORS and 19 received glucose-based hypo-osmolar ORS. The clinical characteristics (age, preadmission duration of diarrhoea, frequency of stool before admission, incidence of vomiting, body weight and volume of initial fluid requirement) were comparable in the three treatment groups. All patients received tetracycline in a dose of 50 mg/kg/d of body weight in 4 divided doses for 3 d.
                Patients who received rice-based hypo-osmolar ORS had subsequently reduced (p < 0.05) stool output, ORS consumption and diarrhoea duration than the patients who received either WHO-ORS or glucose-based hypo-osmolar ORS. The authors compared the safety and efficacy of a ready-to-use, premixed, rice-based oral rehydration solution (R-ORS) with a glucose-based oral rehydration solution (G-ORS), each containing 75 mmol/L sodium, in Mexican children with acute diarrhea for less than 5 days.
                One hundred eighty-nine boys 3 to 24 months old admitted to the hospital with acute diarrhea and signs of dehydration were randomly assigned to receive either G-ORS or R-ORS. Intake and output were measured every 3 hours.
                In the group treated with R-ORS, significantly fewer patients required supplemental intravenous fluids during the rehydration phase compared to the G-ORS group (1% v 8.7%; P < 0.01). Mean stool output, percent weight gain, ORS intake, urine output, and number of patients who vomited during rehydration were similar in the two groups. The mean total stool output after the first 24 hours of maintenance phase was significantly lower in the R-ORS group than in the G-ORS group.
                The authors found rice-based ORS to be safe, and its use reduced the rate of intravenous fluid therapy in comparison with the use of a glucose-based ORS. The efficacy in acute childhood diarrhoea of oral rehydration therapy (ORT) based on staple foods (maize, millet, wheat, sorghum, rice, or potato) was compared with that of standard ORT based on glucose. 266 children aged 1-5 years, with a history of acute diarrhoea for 48 h or less, moderate to severe dehydration, and no complications, were assigned to treatment with one of the food-based oral rehydration salt solutions (ORS) or standard ORS. The mean stool output over the first 24 h of treatment in the group receiving standard ORS was significantly higher than that of any other treatment group, and the groups receiving food-based ORT showed substantial reductions in stool output compared with the standard ORT group. Abnormalities in electrolyte concentrations were corrected in all treatment groups with similar efficiency. The digestibility of the food-based ORS was assessed by the stool pH, glucose content before and after acid hydrolysis, and osmolality; there were no significant differences between the standard ORS and food-based ORS groups. Food-based ORT should be more acceptable to users in developing countries since the mixtures are similar to traditional weaning foods and since, unlike standard ORT, it reduces stool output substantially. nan To evaluate the impact of food on the efficacy of oral rehydration solution (ORS), a randomised, controlled clinical trial was conducted in 182 adults with cholera. After initial rehydration with an intravenous polyelectrolyte solution for four hours, the patients were randomised to receive one of four rehydration therapies: glucose based ORS and no food for the first 24 hours (group A), glucose based ORS plus food from the beginning of treatment (group B), rice based ORS with no food for the first 24 hours (group C), and rice based ORS plus food from start of therapy (group D). Tetracycline was given after 72 hours to all patients. No significant differences in ORS intake, stool output, and duration of diarrhoea were noted between groups A and B and between groups C and D. A substantial and significant reduction in stool output was, however, shown in the groups who received rice based ORS irrespective of feeding. These results show that food does not potentiate the efficacy of either glucose based or rice based ORS in adults with cholera. Rice based ORS compared with glucose ORS substantially reduces purging in cholera patients. Children with acute diarrhea and moderate dehydration between 3 months and 5 years of age were randomly assigned to receive treatment with standard WHO oral rehydration solution (ORS) (n = 33) and two other solutions in which the 20 g/L glucose was substituted by 50 g/L of pop rice (n = 31) and 60 g/L of mung bean (lentil) powder (n = 29). Satisfactory oral rehydration, as assessed clinically and by changes in PCV and total serum solids (TSS), was achieved in 90.9% with WHO ORS, 96.8% with pop rice, and 96.6% in the mung bean ORS treated group (p greater than 0.05). The purging rates (ml/kg/h) until recovery were 2.49 +/- 1.5 (pop rice); 2.91 +/- 2.0 (WHO), and 3.41 +/- 1.7 in the mung bean group (p greater than 0.05). The percentage of patients recovering from diarrhea within the 72 h study period was 58.0 (pop rice), 48.4 (WHO), and 44.8 for mung bean group (p greater than 0.05). Though differences in stool volumes and duration in the three groups were not statistically different, there was a trend toward improvement in efficacy with the pop rice ORS in several parameters: greater weight gain, higher percentage decline in TSS, higher urine output despite lower ORS intake, and lower purging rates. The intake of semisolids in the 24-72 h study period was also higher in the pop rice group as compared to the other two groups (p less than 0.05). The number of breast feeds and intake of artificial milk was however similar in all groups (p greater than 0.05). Previously we reported that standard oral rehydration salts (ORS) solution is not as effective as a reduced-osmolarity glucose-based ORS for the treatment of children with acute noncholera diarrhoea: with standard ORS the diarrhoea lasts longer, stool output is greater, serum sodium is higher, and there is more need for supplemental intravenous infusion. We studied a reduced-osmolarity maltodextrin (MD)-based ORS to determine whether it had similar benefits, and also the effect of sugar malabsorption on the efficacy of standard and MD-based ORS. A total of 90 boys aged 3-24 months with acute noncholera diarrhoea and moderate dehydration were randomly assigned to either standard ORS (glucose 20 g/l, osmolarity 311 mmol/l) or MD-ORS (MD 50 g/l, osmolarity 227 mmol/l). There were no differences in treatment results. Some 46% of subjects had a high total stool output (> 300 g/kg), which was unrelated to the type of ORS given. High stool output was significantly associated with a longer duration of diarrhoea (33 vs. 15 hours; P < 0.001), a persistently elevated serum sodium (149 vs. 144 mmol/l at 24 h; P < 0.02), the need for intravenous infusion (11/41 vs. 0/48; P < 0.002), and an increase in faecal reducing substances (10.8 vs. 3.4 g/l at 24 h; P < 0.001). We conclude that some children given standard ORS develop osmotic diarrhoea owing to the combined effect of transient sugar malabsorption and slight hypertonicity of the ORS. Earlier studies show that this adverse outcome can largely be avoided when extra water is given in reduced-osmolarity glucose-based ORS. Reduced osmolarity has no benefit, however, when glucose is replaced by maltodextrin, probably because the sugars released by hydrolysis of MD, when malabsorbed, raise the intraluminal osmolarity to equal or exceed that of standard ORS. Thus, reduced-osmolarity glucose-based ORS is superior to both standard ORS and reduced-osmolarity solutions based on maltodextrin and probably other complex carbohydrates. Studies are in progress to define the optimal formulation of reduced-osmolarity glucose-based ORS. Rice-starch based oral rehydration solution (ORS) has been shown to be a suitable alternative to glucose-based ORS in the treatment of both choleragenic and non-choleragenic dehydration in older infants and children. However, in young infants, the wider use of rice-starch ORS has been impeded because of theoretical concern about the poor digestibility of starch. The present study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rice-starch ORS in the rehydration of acute diarrhoeal dehydration in infants below 6 months of age. Sixty-three infants with clinical features of acute gastroenteritis were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A, comprising 31 infants, received a rice-starch ORS and group B, comprising 32 infants, received a glucose-based ORS. The response to treatment was monitored by weight gain, stool frequency, and decrease in vomiting. The mean weight gain in moderately dehydrated and mildly dehydrated infants in both groups A and B were closely similar at 12, 24, and 48 h after treatment with the respective ORS solution. The infants without dehydration receiving rice-starch ORS had significantly greater weight gain at 12 h compared to those receiving glucose ORS. However, this difference was not observed at 24 and 48 h. The results of this study show that rice-starch ORS is as safe and efficacious as glucose-based ORS in young infants. The use of oral rehydration salts (ORS) to restore fluid balance in children with diarrhoea is universally accepted. However, there is uncertainty about whether glucose-based ORS or ORS based on precooked rice powder is more effective. In a randomised trial we compared the two types of ORS in children who were given food immediately after completion of rehydration. 460 boys aged 3-18 months, admitted to hospital with acute diarrhoea and signs of dehydration, were randomly assigned to groups receiving rice-based and glucose-based ORS solution (230 to each group). After full rehydration (4-12 h), a weaning food consisting of rice and mixed vegetables was given until the diarrhoea stopped. Continuing losses of liquid stool and vomitus were replaced with the assigned ORS solution. There were no differences between the groups during the rehydration phase in stool volume, volume of ORS solution taken, duration of rehydration phase, or weight gain. However, after initiation of feeding, the glucose-based ORS group had significantly lower stool volumes than the rice-based ORS group (142 [95% CI 117-173] vs 96 [77-120] g/kg); they also took a smaller amount of ORS solution (153 [127-185] vs 111 [90-136] mL/kg) and had a shorter duration of diarrhoea (55 [SD 35] vs 44 [35] h). Glucose-based ORS solution was more effective than rice-based ORS solution for the treatment of diarrhoea in children when feeding with a rice-based diet was started soon after correction of dehydration. These results support the continued recommendation of glucose-based ORS solution as standard therapy for treatment of children with acute diarrhoea and emphasize the importance of resuming feeding as soon as dehydration has been corrected. The safety and efficacy of a rice-based oral rehydration salt (ORS) solution for the treatment of acute diarrhea in infants < 6 months of age was compared to those of a standard glucose-based ORS solution. A total of 97 infants aged 1-6 months who had a history of acute diarrhea for 120 h or less and showed signs of mild to moderate dehydration and no complications was recruited. Subjects were assigned to two treatment groups and received either standard glucose-based ORS solution or rice-based ORS solution until cessation of diarrhea. There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups with regard to the main outcome variables, including total stool output (84 [95% confidence interval (CI), 56-126] vs. 106 (95% CI, 76-148) g/kg], total ORS solution intake [171 (95% CI, 149-197) vs. 187 (95% CI, 161-218) ml/kg], or duration of diarrhea (35 +/- 31 vs 38 +/- 32 h). In addition, the fact that there was no difference between treatment groups in the presence of reducing substances in the stools suggests that rice was digested and absorbed by these infants. The results of our study support the conclusion that for infants < 6 months of age, rice-based ORS solution is safe and as efficacious as standard glucose-based ORS solution in the treatment of acute diarrhea. In past studies, patients with cholera and cholera-like diarrhoea treated with rice oral rehydration solution (ORS) had lower purging rates and a shorter illness duration. We evaluated a new packet form of rice ORS (CeraLyte-90) in 167 boys aged 5 to 15 y, with acute, dehydrating cholera and cholera-like diarrhoea in Bangladesh. The patients were randomized to receive either CeraLyte-90 (n = 85) or glucose ORS (n = 82) and were given early feeding and early antibiotics. The efficacy of the two solutions was compared for stool output during the first 8 h, the first 24 h, and total output, duration of diarrhoea, hematocrit, serum electrolytes and requirement for unscheduled intravenous fluids. The clinical and laboratory characteristics of the two groups were comparable on admission, and most of the patients had cholera (88% and 84% in the CeraLyte and glucose groups, respectively). The mean (+/- SE) stool output was 20% less in the rice ORS group during the first 8 h of treatment (86.2+/-6.6 ml/Kg vs 108.8+/-7.9 ml/Kg, p < 0.05), but the outputs during the other time periods were similar in the two groups, although children in the rice ORS group had slightly more vomiting on day one (p < 0.05). The mean serum electrolyte concentrations in both groups of children remained within normal range.
                The study documents the safety and efficacy of the new, packaged rice ORS. The success of oral rehydration therapy in cases of severe diarrheas have led to a need for locally based therapy preparations. A preparation consisting of a precooked plantain flour-based solution and standard rehydration electrolytes was examined for its effectiveness in treating dehydration, as well as its anti-diarrhoeal properties.
                A sample of 101 children, ranging in age from 1 to 48 months, was selected, which had presented diarrhea for less than one week from onset, with mild dehydration and no associated complications. Fifty-four children received the ORS/WHO standard treatment, and 47 received a solution with electrolytes similar to ORS/WHO, containing 50 g of precooked plantain flour instead of glucose (ORS/plantain).
                Successful rehydration was achieved in 94.4% of the children in the ORS/WHO group and 91.5% in the ORS/plantain group (p = 0.70). Required time for rehydration was 5.8 (SD +/- 3.0) hours in the ORS/WHO group and 6.2 (SD +/- 3.7) hours in the ORS/plantain group (p = 0.31). Stool output during rehydration was 7.5 g/kg body weight/hour (SD +/- 7.6) in the ORS/WHO group, and 7.05 g/kg/hour (SD +/- 9.4) in the ORS/plantain group (p = 0.78). No significant differences were noted in the concentrations of plasma sodium. The observation period was 22.3 hours (SD +/- 5.3) for the ORS/WHO group and 22.7 hours (SD +/- 4.7) for the ORS/plantain group. Stool output during the observation period was 5.7 g/kg/hour (SD +/- 4.7) in the ORS/WHO group and 6.3 g/kg/hour (SD +/- 7.9) in the ORS/plantain group (p = 0.67). The proportion of children requiring intravenous fluids during the first 24 hours was 11.1% in the ORS/WHO group and 8.5% in the ORS/plantain group (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 0.39-4.35).
                The plantain flour-based solution proved effective and safe in correcting dehydration; however the antidiarrhoeal properties of ORS/plaintain were not demonstrated. nan nan We compared the efficacy of a maltodextrin containing oral rehydration salts (ORS) solution with that of the WHO recommended glucose-ORS solution in a double blind randomized study of treating 69 children (33 in experimental group; 36 in control group) aged 4-36 months with acute diarrhoea causing mild to moderate dehydration. Both the groups of children were similar in initial clinical characteristics and received only ORS solutions. No significant differences in stool output (median 88.0, range 34-320 g/kg body wt. in experiment vs 75.0, 25-410 g/kg in control), intake of ORS solution (125.0, 58-360 ml/kg body wt. vs 154, 130-250 ml/kg), and duration of recovery from diarrhoea (2.0 d, range 1-6 vs 2.0 d, 1-9) were found between the groups. The haematocrit and serum electrolyte values in the two groups 24 hours after starting treatment were also similar. The results suggest that the ORS containing maltodextrin (50 g/l) in place of glucose has no advantage over WHO-ORS in correcting mild to moderate dehydration of children with acute diarrhoea. Rice based oral rehydration therapy (ORT) solutions have been shown to be superior to glucose oral rehydration salts (World Health Organisation (WHO) ORS) in reducing stool volume and duration of diarrhoea in children and adults. Rice based ORT has been used only sparingly in young infants, however, because of theoretical concerns about digestibility. A randomised controlled trial of rice based ORT (50 g rice and electrolytes identical to WHO ORS) and WHO ORS was carried out in 52 male infants less than 6 months old with moderately severe acute diarrhoea to evaluate efficacy and digestibility. Nineteen (70%) of 27 children who received rice based ORT and 18 (72%) of 25 children who received WHO ORS were treated successfully. The mean (SD) diarrhoeal stool output for the first 24 hours of treatment was significantly lower in the infants receiving the rice based ORT than in those receiving WHO ORS (101.0 (60.5) v 137.1 (74.6) g/kg). The stool output was also significantly less in the rice based ORT group in the second 24 hours. Infants in the rice based ORT group drank significantly less rehydration solution than infants in the WHO ORS group (mean (SD) 165.4 (77.4) v 217.9 (86.1) during the first 24 hours of treatment. There was no difference in the duration of diarrhoea between the groups. The volume of breast and formula feeding was similar in the two groups. No difference was seen in the frequency of finding reducing substances or acid pH in the stools of either group of children. The results suggest that rice based ORT is as effective as WHO ORS in infants with moderately severe diarrhoea and that rice based ORT is as well tolerated as WHO ORS in infants. We report a controlled clinical trial of rice powder-based oral rehydration solution (ORS) versus glucose ORS on the outcome of acute diarrhea in infants. The rice ORS group (n = 30) received ORS containing 50 g rice powder instead of standard WHO solution (20 g glucose, n = 30). Formula-fed male infants were enrolled to enable calculation of milk intake and excretion of urine. Patient allocation to either group depended on the method of random permuted blocks. Both groups were comparable regarding age (4-18 months), duration of diarrhea, number of bowel movements or vomiting per 24 h, rectal temperature, dehydration score, and nutritional status. Results revealed that the rice ORS group had a shorter duration of diarrhea (28.4 +/- 5.1 vs 34.3 +/- 2.3 h) and greater mean weight gain in the first 24 h as percentage of recovery weight (5.7 +/- 0.5% vs 4.1 +/- 0.6%). Furthermore, the mean amount of ORS intake, mean stool output, and mean number of episodes of vomiting were lower in the rice-ORS group as compared with the glucose ORS group. All differences were statistically significant. Due to its observed superiority and low cost, the widespread use of rice ORS should be considered for treatment of acute diarrhea. One hundred children with acute dehydrating diarrhoea were studied. They were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 50) were given rice-based oral rehydration salt (ORS) solution and group B (n = 50) were given glucose-based ORS solution (WHO). There was no significant decrease in mean stool output and percentage weight gain with rice-based ORS. Both the groups were comparable for volume of ORS solution consumed, time taken for initial rehydration, mean stool output and for correcting biochemical abnormalities. Although malnutrition is frequently associated with diarrhea, most oral rehydration solutions have been tested in well-nourished children. The study tests efficacy of rice, a traditional treatment for diarrhea in Madagascar.
                150 severely malnourished children, aged 6 months to 3 years, took part in this randomized trial. All the children were given oral rehydration solution, (100 ml/kg) in the first 6 hours. The first group (68 children) was given a solution containing glucose, (20 g/l). The second group (82 children) was given a solution containing rice powder (50 g/l). Treatment was then continued according to WHO recommendations, including feeding after rehydration (mixture of milk, oil and sugar).
                The age, weight, height, duration of diarrhea before admission, degree of dehydration and pathogens in stools of the two groups were comparable on admission. Only 2 patients were withdrawn from the trial. The percentage of death was the same in both groups: 16% of those given glucose and 15% of those given rice-based rehydration solution. The weight gains were similar in both groups; the duration of diarrhea was 89 +/- 6 hours in the glucose-fed groups and 68 +/- 4 hours for those given the rice-based rehydration solution (p < 0.02).
                Both glucose and rice-based rehydration solutions are equally effective for rehydrating severely malnourished children with acute diarrhea. The rice-based rehydration solution also reduces the duration of diarrhea. Reduction of gross diarrhea rate in excess of that seen over time with intravenous therapy and appropriate antibiotics is not usually achieved by oral glucose-electrolyte rehydration therapy for cholera and cholera-like diarrheas.
                This prospective randomized clinical trial at a tertiary referral hospital in southern India was undertaken to determine whether amylase resistant starch, substituting for glucose in hypo-osmolar oral rehydration solution, would reduce diarrhea duration and weight in adults with acute severe dehydrating diarrhea. 50 adult males with severe watery diarrhea of less than three days' duration and moderate to severe dehydration were randomized to receive hypo-osmolar ORS (HO-ORS) or HO-ORS in which amylase resistant high amylose maize starch 50g/L substituted for glucose (HAMS-ORS). All remaining therapy followed standard protocol. Duration of diarrhea (ORS commencement to first formed stool) in hours was significantly shorter with HAMS-ORS (median 19, IQR 10-28) compared to HO-ORS (median 42, IQR 24-50) (Bonferroni adjusted P, P(adj)<0.001). Survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier) showed faster recovery from diarrhea in the HAMS-ORS group (P<0.001, log rank test). Total diarrhea fecal weight in grams (median, IQR) was not significantly lower in the HAMS-ORS group (2190, 1160-5635) compared to HO-ORS (5210, 2095-12190) (P(adj) = 0.08). However, stool weight at 13-24 hours (280, 0-965 vs. 1360, 405-2985) and 25-48 hours (0, 0-360 vs. 1080, 55-3485) were significantly lower in HAMS-ORS compared to HO-ORS group (P(adj) = 0.048 and P = 0.012, respectively). ORS intake after first 24 hours was lower in the HAMS-ORS group. Subgroup analysis of patients with culture isolates of Vibrio cholerae indicated similar significant differences between the treatment groups.
                Compared to HO-ORS, HAMS-ORS reduced diarrhea duration by 55% and significantly reduced fecal weight after the first 12 hours of ORS therapy in adults with cholera-like diarrhea.
                Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72841333. Recent animal experiments and clinical trials have shown that both osmolarity and rice as the organic components are important factors for net intestinal absorption of an oral rehydration salt solution.
                In a controlled clinical trial 123 male adult patients with severe cholera, after initial rehydration with intravenous Ringer's lactate solution, were randomly assigned to receive one of the four oral rehydration salt solutions: WHO ORS, ORS containing 70 mmol/l Na+ and 16.2 g/l glucose, rice ORS containing 50 g/l rice and 90 mmol/l Na+, and rice ORS containing 50 g/l rice and 70 mmol/l Na+. All patients received 300 mg of doxycycline as a single dose.
                Patients who received rice-low-sodium ORS subsequently had lower (P < 0.05) stool output, ORS consumption, and diarrhoea duration than the other three ORS groups.
                We conclude that rice-based low-sodium ORS is superior for treating adult cholera. This randomized clinical trial compared the efficacy of an oral rehydration solution (ORS) formulated with commercial rice powder, 50 g/l, with that of a glucose-based WHO/UNICEF-recommended ORS in the management of 48 inpatients aged 3-24 months, with acute dehydrating watery diarrhoea. Stool outputs were generally high in these patients, and 11 patients (22%) required additional intravenous rehydration solutions. The stool output (ml/kg) in the first 24 hours was [geometric mean, (95% confidence intervals)] 213 (153-353) in the rice-ORS group versus 146 (108-232) in the glucose-ORS group, while the total stool output was 455 (298-933) versus 307 (209-625); (p value not significant). The mean (+/- SD) duration of diarrhoea in hospital was: 72 +/- 10 hours in the study group versus 77 +/- 12 hours in the control group (p value NS). Enteropathogens were found in 94% of the patients, rotavirus being prevalent in 85% of the cases. It is concluded that the rice-ORS used in this trial is no more efficacious than the standard glucose-ORS advocated by WHO/UNICEF in the treatment of infants with watery non-cholera dehydrating diarrhoea. In some cases, ORS formulated with the commercial cereal-based products might actually increase the stool losses in infants with high-output non-cholera diarrhoea. This randomized trial compared the efficacy of a rice-based (50 g/L) oral rehydration solution with the standard glucose-based WHO/UNICEF solution in the treatment of 100 hospitalized infants, ages 3-18 months, with acute dehydrating diarrhea. The main outcomes examined were stool output and duration of diarrhea. Patients were placed on a "metabolic" bed so that intake and losses could be measured accurately throughout the study. Overall, 89% of patients were successfully rehydrated orally; the rehydration failure rate was similar in the two groups and it was significantly associated with infection by specific E. coli serotypes. Stool output in the first 24 h was 11% lower in the rice group (112 versus 126 ml/kg), but this difference was not significant. Neither stool output in the second 24 h nor total stool output were different between groups. The median duration of diarrhea was 3.8 days in the rice group and 3.9 days in the glucose group (p = NS). Other (secondary) outcomes, such as fluid intake, urine output, emesis losses, weight change, and electrolyte balance were also similar between the two groups. Some evidence of carbohydrate malabsorption was detected in 61% of the rice group versus 45% of the glucose group (p = NS) and was not associated with any particular treatment outcome. These results show that a rice-based oral rehydration solution is as efficacious as, but not better than the standard glucose-based solution in the treatment of infants with acute dehydrating diarrhea not associated with cholera. Although standard glucose-based oral rehydration therapy corrects the dehydration caused by cholera, it does not reduce the diarrhea. Short-chain fatty acids, which are produced in the colon from nonabsorbed carbohydrates, enhance sodium absorption. We conducted a study to determine the effects of an orally administered, nonabsorbed starch (i.e., one resistant to digestion by amylase) on fecal fluid loss and the duration of diarrhea in patients with cholera.
                We randomly assigned 48 adolescents and adults with cholera to treatment with standard oral rehydration therapy (16 patients), standard therapy and 50 g of rice flour per liter of oral rehydration solution (16 patients), or standard therapy and 50 g of high-amylose maize starch, an amylase-resistant starch, per liter of oral rehydration solution (16 patients). The primary end points were fecal weight (for every 12-hour period during the first 48 hours after enrollment) and the length of time to the first formed stool.
                The mean (+/-SD) fecal weights in the periods 12 to 24 hours, 24 to 36 hours, and 36 to 48 hours after enrollment were significantly lower in the resistant-starch group (2206+/-1158 g, 1810+/-1018 g, and 985+/-668 g) than in the standard-therapy group (3251+/-766 g, 2621+/-1149 g, and 2498+/-1080 g; P=0.01, P= 0.04, and P=0.001, respectively). From 36 to 48 hours after enrollment, fecal weight was also significantly lower with the resistant-starch therapy than with the rice-flour therapy (985+/-668 g vs. 1790+/-866 g, P=0.01). The mean duration of diarrhea was significantly shorter with the resistant-starch therapy (56.7+/-18.6 hours) than with standard therapy alone (90.9+/-29.8 hours, P=0.001) or the rice-flour therapy (70.8+/-20.2 hours, P=0.05). Fecal excretion of starch was higher with the resistant-starch therapy (32.6+/-30.4) than with the standard therapy (11.7+/-4.1 g, P=0.002) or the rice-flour therapy (15.1+/-8.4 g, P=0.01).
                The addition of a resistant starch to oral rehydration solution reduces fecal fluid loss and shortens the duration of diarrhea in adolescents and adults with cholera. A randomized controlled study was carried out at the Children's Emergency Hospital, Khartoum to evaluate the acceptability, safety and efficacy of (rice or sorghum) cereal-based oral rehydration solutions (ORS) relative to that of the standard WHO ORS formulation in children with acute diarrhoea. Ninety-six children whose ages ranged from 6 to 40 months were enrolled in the study. Thirty-two of them were allocated to the rice-based ORS group, 34 to the sorghum-based ORS group and 30 to the control group. Cereal-based ORS solutions were found to shorten the duration of diarrhoea and to reduce both the stool volume and the frequency of diarrhoea and vomiting as well as the mean total ORS intake. These effects were more marked with the sorghum-based ORS than with the rice-based ORS. By the end of day 3, 50% of patients in the rice ORS group and 67.6% in the sorghum ORS group had recovered compared with 40% from the standard ORS group. Glucose-based or rice-based ORS is the standard treatment in acute dehydrating diarrhoea. However, glucose may not be easily available in remote villages and the rice needs to be cooked for rice-based ORS. We embarked on a study to examine whether uncooked rice powder could be used as an alternative to glucose or cooked rice powder in ORS. Initially, 50 adult male patients (aged 18 to 55 yr) were randomized to receive glucose-ORS or uncooked rice ORS, in two equal groups. Subsequently, 20 male children (aged 3 to 12 yr) were also enrolled in the study and received either WHO-ORS or study ORS. All the adult patients and the children could be successfully rehydrated with ORS containing uncooked rice powder. As compared to WHO-ORS, the study ORS significantly reduced stool output (6.60 +/- 1.24 vs. 5.88 +/- 1.34 l), ORS intake (9.17 +/- 1.54 vs 8.24 +/- 1.69 l) and duration of diarrhoea (45.68 +/- 6.91 vs 41.32 +/- 6.03 h). In children also similar results were obtained. No clinical complication (e.g., vomiting, abdominal pain etc.) or abnormality in serum electrolyte concentrations was encountered either in the adults or in the children. Uncooked rice powder containing ORS can be considered as an alternative to glucose-based ORS or rice-based ORS. A prospective randomized trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of a rice-based oral rehydration solution (ORS) with glucose ORS in infants and children under 5 years of age with acute diarrhoea and mild to moderate dehydration (< 10%). One hundred children presenting to a large metropolitan teaching hospital were eligible for entry to the study and were randomized to receive rice ORS or glucose ORS. Outcome measures were stool output (SO), duration of illness (DD) and recovery time to introduction of other fluids (RTF) and diet (RTD). Significant differences were found for all outcome measures in favour of the rice ORS group. Mean SO was lower (160 vs 213 mL; P < 0.02), mean DD was reduced (17.3 vs 24.3 h; P = 0.03) and median RTF was decreased (12.7 vs 18.1 h; P < 0.001) in the rice ORS group compared with the glucose ORS group. The median time to introduction of diet and mean length of hospital stay showed similar significant reductions. Our study has shown rice ORS to be an acceptable alternative to glucose ORS in young children and have shown that it is significantly more effective in reducing the course of diarrhoeal illness and the time taken to return to normal drinking and eating habits. nan
Polymer-based ORS shows some advantages compared to ORS ≥ 310 for treating all-cause diarrhoea, and in diarrhoea caused by cholera. Comparisons favoured the polymer-based ORS over ORS ≤ 270, but the analysis was underpowered. If specialists consider a potential role for polymer-based ORS, further trials against the current standard (ORS ≤ 270) will be required.