European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine

Nonspecific antidiarrheals (allopathic and ayurvedic) are routinely used in clinical practice along with routine treatment in the management of acute diarrhea.Studies comparing their efficacy are very few, although they are used extensively by clinicians. This prospective observational study was carried out at two private clinics run by pediatricians to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of DIAREX, an ayurvedic formulation versus racecadotril in the treatment of acute diarrhea.
Children aged 2 years to 10 years who presented to the clinic with acute diarrhea and fulfilling selection criteria were enrolled and divided into two treatment groups viz, DIAREX and racecadotril. Data collection was done using predesigned forms and questionnaires. The groups were comparable clinically and demographically at enrolment.  
Outcome measures used were 1) Time required for improvement in stool consistency2)Frequency of stools until recovery 3) Duration of diarrhea, after initiation of treatment.
Racecadotril improved stool consistency in less time compared to DIAREX (23.07h vs 29.00h). Patients on racecadotril passed 3.85±0.11 stools before recovery, while patients on DIAREX passed 5.26± 0.27stools.Rapid improvement in stool consistency and frequency was found with racecadotril compared to DIAREX. However, there was no significant difference between racecadotril and Diarex as far as duration of diarrhea was concerned.  (39.43±1.47h Vs. 42.77±1.48h;P> 0.05).Although DIAREX was found to be clinically useful to relieve the symptoms of acute diarrhea in children, racecadotril was more effective.

In clinical practice, nonspecific antidiarrheals (allopathic and ayurvedic) are commonly
used by clinicians along with routine treatment to hasten the recovery and to give
psychological reassurance. Although they are used extensively in practice, studies
comparing their efficacy are few. This prospective observational study was carried out
at two private clinics run by pediatricians to compare the efficacy, safety, and
tolerability of DIAREX, an ayurvedic antidiarrheal formulation versus loperamide in
the treatment of acute diarrhea.
Children aged 5y to 10 y who presented to the clinic with acute diarrhea and fulfilling
selection criteria were enrolled and divided into two treatment groups viz, DIAREX and
loperamide. Data collection was done using predesigned case report forms and
questionnaires. Outcome Measures used were 1)Duration of diarrhea, after initiation of
treatment 2)Frequency of stools until recovery 3)Time required for improvement in
stool consistency. The groups were comparable clinically and demographically at
enrolment.
Loperamide improved stool consistency in less time compared to DIAREX (16.24h
vs 29.00h). Patients on loperamide passed 3.32± 0.16 stools before recovery, while
patients on DIAREX passed 5.26± 0.27stools. Rapid improvement in stool consistency
and frequency was found with loperamide compared to DIAREX. The mean duration of
diarrhea was less for loperamide group (30.35±1.43h Vs. 42.77±1.48h; P < 0.05).
DIAREX was found to be clinically useful to decrease the duration and symptoms in
acute diarrhea in children. However, loperamide was more effective. DIAREX may be
used, if there is concern about the adverse events with loperamide.