# Miralax- not good to use



## fishnets (Oct 3, 2003)

After seeing a bunch of posts here about Miralax, I read the Miralax website. Just want to make sure you all know that it is a stimulant laxative, which is NOT good to take long term. Stimulant laxatives cause dependancy, which means that over the long term it will make you constipation WORSE cause you will not be able to poop on your own! I suggest trying stool softeners instead, those you can take as often as you want and your body does not get addicted to them. Just want to let you guys know!From the website:"MiraLax is indicated for the treatment of occasional constipation. This product should be used for 2 weeks or less or as directed by physician......Prolonged, frequent or excessive use of MiraLax may result in electrolyte imbalance and dependence on laxatives."


----------



## michele brake (Sep 22, 2003)

I think miralax should be a last resort. I have taken it for 3 years and it has given me back my life. My DR told me I would probably become dependant on it and that I could take it long term. I tried EVERYHTING before taking it and couldn't get the constipation under control. I was so sick from the build up in my system. I now rarely get constipated and if I do one extra dose of miralax is usuallu enough to get things moving again. Again, I do agree this should be a last resort but for those of who you have already tried everything else its better than being miserable all the time!


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

The warning given DOES NOT mean Miralax is a Stimulatory Laxative.From the Prescribing information (what the doctor uses to find out what the heck it is) also on the Miralax website.


> quote: CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGYPharmacology: MiraLax is an osmotic agent which causes water to beretained with the stool.


Given it's chemical composition that is all it can be.I see this warning much like the one on Imodium. It is to make sure people with CHRONIC issues get a full workup before deciding to just use something for the symptoms to KEEP from getting a full work up.I'm not sure why they put the "may cause dependance" on osmotic laxative other than it is to cover their butts legally. I know of no evidence of this (in contrast to senna, etc where there is some evidence). Well that and to try to convince bulimic not to use it for weight loss and other things people abuse laxatives over...I'm thinking the 2 weeks or less is because of how the drug was initially tested and unless they do a lot more expensive testing it would be hard to get FDA approval for long-term usage. There are medical studies where it is used for chronic constipation and it seems to be OK.Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2002 May;41(4):225-9. Comparison of polyethylene glycol 3350 and lactulose for treatment of chronic constipation in children.Gremse DA, Hixon J, Crutchfield A.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003 Jul;157(7):661-4. Safety of polyethylene glycol 3350 for the treatment of chronic constipation in children.Pashankar DS, Loening-Baucke V, Bishop WP.And this article has a quote that it is OK for chronic constipation (If the FDA testing was for short term, the company by law can ONLY recommend it for short term until the reapply to the FDA with a complete set of new studies...usually it is way too expensive to do that esp. since doctors will prescribe based on the medical lit if it is helpful for something outside the one-two things something was tested for...like taking asprin for heart health)Dis Colon Rectum. 2001 Aug;44(8):1201-9.Adverse effects of laxatives.Xing JH, Soffer EE."Polyethylene glycol solutions are emerging as an effective and safe mode of treatment for chronic constipation."So what the FDA says they can say about it, the data all seems to show it is safe and effective for chronic constipation, so I wouldn't get to wound up about the warnings they have to attach to it because they only went for approval of one thing (when most drugs end up safe and effective for many things)


----------



## Kathleen M. (Nov 16, 1999)

Here is one where they show it is not stimulatoryEur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001 Jun;13(6):647-54. Effects of polyethylene glycol 4000 on 24-h manometric recordings of left colonic motor activity.Herve S, Leroi AM, Mathiex-Fortunet H, Garnier P, Karoui S, Menard JF, Ducrotte P, Denis P.Groupe de Recherche de l'Appareil Digestif Environnement et Nutrition, Hjpital Charles Nicolle, Rouen, France.BACKGROUND: *It has been shown that low doses of polyethylene glycol (PEG) 4000 are effective in the treatment of chronic constipation.* The aim of this study was to describe the effects on colonic motility of oral PEG 4000 treatment and intraluminal instillation of PEG 4000. METHODS: Left colonic and rectosigmoid manometric recordings were performed for 27 h in six constipated patients and in six healthy volunteers. At the end of the recording, bisacodyl and PEG 4000 were instilled into the lumen of the colon. To assess the effects of oral administration of PEG 4000 on colonic motility, manometric recordings were also performed in constipated patients after 4 weeks of treatment with PEG 4000. RESULTS: All patients had significantly more stools during than before PEG treatment. There was no significant difference between the number and the characteristics of high-amplitude propagating contractions (HAPC) or the area under the curve (AUC) before or during treatment with PEG 4000. Intraluminal instillation of PEG induced HAPC in only one patient and in no controls. *CONCLUSION: This study shows that PEG 4000 has no effect on left colonic and rectosigmoid motor activity during oral treatment, despite its clinical effectiveness, or after local instillation.*


----------



## michele brake (Sep 22, 2003)

I agree that it had solved my constipation problems! I do find that if I skip a dose than I ship a bowel movement as well! I use one of those mail in prescriptions places and my oder was about a week late this past winter and I did not have a bowel movement until the 2nd day after I started the miralax again! I believe it is a good treatment despite the fact I will probably have to take it forever. I can't imagine my life without it! I would reccommend it to people who have exhausted all other options. I have to believe being severly constipated is worse for your body than miralax!


----------



## flux (Dec 13, 1998)

> quote:I suggest trying stool softeners instead, those you can take as often as you want and your body does not get addicted to them


As if one error is not enough. One of these is Colace (docusate) and it appears that this is a stimulant laxative and may have other potentially harmful side effects as well.


----------



## elvesrock (Nov 21, 2003)

colase is most definitely NOT a stimulatory laxative. flux, you're dumb.


----------



## flux (Dec 13, 1998)

> quote:colase is most definitely NOT a stimulatory laxative










It apparently is.


----------



## elvesrock (Nov 21, 2003)

no it is not. DUH.


----------



## flux (Dec 13, 1998)

> quote:no it is not.


Yes, it is


----------



## ghitta (Jul 6, 2002)

to put an end to this discussion of whether or not Colace is a stimulatory lax or not, why bother to use any stool softeners when magnesium supps seem to work just as well, perform the same function, without the harmful salts. (ducosolate sodium etc) - mag is a stool softener as it is an osmotic and i am referring to mag mineral supps NOT milk of magnesia. many folk including myself have found relief with it. g-


----------



## alb318 (Nov 16, 2003)

Well, for me I am thinking Miralax was a last option because it beat the heck out of mass system shut down when everything backs up and I completely dehydrate. And I am very sorry, but 100s and 100s of mgs of stool softeners every day were getting me nowhere. But I think that its an individual thing. I started Zelnorm and miralax at the same time. The Zelnorm has done nothing but give me a terrible migraine which is a shame, I had great hopes for it. However, the miralax with my new dietician balanced very low fat, high soluble/insoluble fiber diet has been a miracle to me. Having a system that actually works on a regular basis is something I couldn't imagine. Thank you kmottus for the info I was going ot go searching for , because we had been discussing the safety of Miralax the other day. You made my search much easy.I'll continue to take it out of the simple pleasure of finally finding some answers and a little peace of mind


----------



## fishnets (Oct 3, 2003)

Well ok then, just wanted to make sure you guys that use it are ok. Ghitta- cause magnesium doesn't work for everyone.And Flux, Colace is a stool softener. If not, then why does it say "Stool Softener" right on the bottle?


----------



## wigglesmom (Dec 12, 2002)

I'm with those of you that swear by Miralax. It has also given me back my life. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING else worked for me. I have my life back now, and it's a world of difference. I'm glad it has helped others as well.


----------



## flux (Dec 13, 1998)

> quote:Flux, Colace is a stool softener. If not, then why does it say "Stool Softener" right on the bottle?


It is and also a stimulatory laxative. (To actually say that, the company would have prove it to FDA.)


----------



## loulou (Jan 18, 2001)

I thought this Colace is a stimulatory laxative yes or no question would be easy to clear up with a google search, but when I did the search it seemed that Colace comes both with a stimulate and without a stimulate. I believe you two are both correct.


----------



## Guest (Nov 26, 2003)

my doc told me that mirilax was safe to take long term and not addicting. though he's been wrong about a lot of things, so don't know what to make of that


----------



## teach (Oct 20, 2001)

There are TWO types of colace... One..COLACE the other PERICOLACE. Pericolace has a laxative in it while plain colace does not... there fore it is considered an emolliant and NOT stimulatory.


----------



## flux (Dec 13, 1998)

> quote:while plain colace does not... there fore it is considered an emolliant and NOT stimulatory.


Colace's ingredient docusate is *also* stimulatory. The main reason this appears not to be mentioned explicity anywhere is that it is a secondary, perhaps minor effect compared to its soaplike effect, but it is there nonetheless.


----------

