Simethicone
in the
Treatment
of Infant
Colic:
A Randomized,
Placebo-Controlled,
Multicenter
Trial
Thomas
J.
Metcalf, M1Y; Thomas G. Irons, MDX; Lawrence D. Sher, MD; and Paul C. Young, MDIJABSTRACT. Objective. To determine the efficacy of simethicone in the treatment of infant colic.
Design. Randomized, double blind,
placebo-con-trolled.
Setting. Three general pediatric practices in distinct
geographic regions.
Patients. Eighty-three infants between 2 and 8 weeks
of age with infant colic.
Interventions. Treatment with simethicone and
pla-cebo in double blind crossover fashion.
Results. A total of 166 treatment periods, ranging from 3 to 10 days, were evaluated in the 83 infants.
Compared to baseline, improvement in symptoms was reported for 54% of the treatment periods, worsening was
reported for 22%, and, for 24%, there was no change. The
likelihood of the treatment period being rated as
show-ing improvement, worsening, or no change was the same whether the infant was receiving placebo or simethicone. Twenty-eight percent of he infants responded only to simethicone, 37% only to placebo, and 20% responded to both. No statistically significant differences were noted among these three groups of responders. No difference
could be shown even when infants with “gas-related
symptoms” (by parental report) were separated out as a group.
Conclusion. Although both produced perceived
im-provements in symptoms, simethicone is no more
effec-five than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic. Pediatrics 19949429-34; colic, simethicone, infant.
Infant colic continues to be a problem for babies,
parents, and physicians. Recognized since at least the sixth century, yet still defying precise understanding,
colic produces variable amounts of distress for 10%
to 20% of infants and their parents during the first 3
months of life.’5 According to Carey research to
improve the understanding and management of colic has been confounded by: 1) lack of a uniform
defi-nition of the problem; 2) poorly supported
conclu-sions regarding its basic etiology; 3) few
well-de-signed studies of therapy; and 4) inaccurate
measurement of the amount of crying as an outcome. From a clinical perspective, a colicky infant is
typ-From the *jfl Creek Pediatrics, Salt Lake City, UT; Department of
Pediatrics, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, NC;
§Peninsula Allergy Associates, Rolling Hills Estates, CA; and lDepartment
ofPediatrics, The University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, VT.
Dr Young’s current address is theDepartment ofPediatrics, The University
of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Received for publication Sep 7, 1993; accepted Dec 3,1993.
Reprint requests to (P. C. Y.) Department of Pediatrics, The University of Utah School ofMedicine, 50 North Medical Drive, Salt LakeCity, UT, 84132.
PEDIATRXS (ISSN 0031 4005). Copyright C 1994 by the American Aced. emy of Pediatrics.
ically described as an otherwise normal infant, 2
weeks to 3 months old, who fusses or screams for an extended period of time, usually in the afternoon and evening, draws his or her legs up, is largely incon-solable, and sometimes seems temporarily but incon-sistently relieved by passing gas. For research pur-poses, Wessel’s’ more specific definition of an infant with colic as, “one who, otherwise healthy and well-fed, has paroxysms of irritability, fussing or crying lasting for more than three hours a day and
occur-ring on more than three days in any one week,” has
been widely accepted in the literature and was used
by our group for this study.
A wide range of explanations for the cause of colic
can be found in the medical literature. Allergy or
intolerance to cow milk, either in the infant’s or the nursing mother’s diet, has its proponents and opponents.7#{176}
Although “maternal tension”1 has been largely dis-carded as a cause, problems in the interaction between the infant and the “environment” (parents)’2 or, more specifically, inappropriate response(s) to the infant’s crying by the parents’3 are believed by some to cause or
contribute to the problem. Implicit in the strategies
recommended by many is the belief that colic is not a
pathologic entity at all but simply an extreme variant of
“normal” crying which can be caused by hunger,
dis-comfort from a soiled or wet diaper, boredom, or from unidentifiable causes.14’6 Similarly, many interven-tions to prevenV7 or manage colic have been reported.
These range from increased carrying,18 or
simu-lated automobile rides,’9 dietary changes for the infant or mother,7’#{176} counseling parents to respond “appro-priately” to the crying,’3’2#{176}and medications.
Dicyclo-mine hydrochloride has been reported as being
effective but is now contraindicated in infants
under 6 months because of reports of apnea in
infants who were receiving t.fl24
Another agent, simethicone (methylpolysioxane),
has been promoted as being of value because of the
impression that increased intestinal gas is causally associated with colic. It is advertised in professional
journals as being beneficial and is often
recom-mended by physicians who care for children. Sime-thicone is a defoaming agent, known to change the surface tension of gas bubbles, causing them to coa-lesce, and accelerates the passage of gas through the
intestine although the actual volume of gas is not
changed. Simethicone is not toxic, and is not
ab-sorbed from the intestine. Its safety has been well-documented.26’7
at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020
www.aappublications.org/news
Studies of simethicone in the treatment of colic
have shown varying results. Dugger and
Inchaust-eguP in both a double blind study of 20 infants and
a nonblinded study of 14 infants with colic were
unable to show benefit, save in two of the latter 14,
where colic was “possibly improved.” Danielson and
Hwang studied 27 infants ranging from 2 to 8 weeks of age in a double blind, crossover fashion. The infants were given 0.3 cc of simethicone solution
before each meal, and their responses were
mea-sured by interviews, 3-4-hour behavioral observa-tions, and 24-hour records by parents of the infants’ crying, fussing, eating, and stools. Placebo and sime-thicone treatments were equivalent by all measures, regardless of order of treatment, but, interestingly,
the authors noted a decrease in crying during both
treatment phases. This was interpreted as possible evidence for colic being self-limited and the study demonstrating the natural course of the complaint, or that a placebo effect had taken place. The authors felt that either simethicone does not in fact reduce intestinal gas, or that abdominal cramping caused by
intestinal gas is not a pathogenic mechanism in
in-fantile colic. A recent open-label study of 51 infants
showed nine with symptoms resolved in 7 days, 35
improved, and seven with no improvement.#{176} How-ever, neither parents nor investigators were blinded. A recent study by Sethi and Sethi31 claimed efficacy
of simethicone in a randomized, double blind
cross-over study of 26 infants. However, colic was not
defined, criteria for study entrance were not speci-fled, the dosage used was variable, and the effective dose was not clearly described. In an earlier
open-label pilot study, our group found 50% to 80% of 41
infants to have a positive response to administration of 0.3 ml of simethicone with feedings (unpublished data).
To determine the efficacy of simetkicone for treat-ing infant colic, we designed a study to overcome the deficiencies of earlier work. We used the generally accepted rigorous definition of colic by Wessel,1 em-ployed a double blind, placebo-controlled, crossover format, and recruited a broad cross-section of colicky infants from several areas of the country. Addition-ally, we planned our study so that we could ascertain
whether a subset of infants with colic, those who
were felt by their parents to have symptoms sugges-five of increased intestinal gas, might have a
differ-ent response to simethicone from those without such
symptoms.
Patients
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients were recruited from three centers: University
Pediat-tics, the general pediatric practice of the department of pediatrics of the University of Vermont College of Medicine in Burlington,
Vermont; The Pediatric Clinic of the East Carolina University
School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina; and Wifiow Creek
Pediatrics, a private office practice in Salt Lake City, Utah. Infants
with crying sufficient to meet the criteria of Wessel’s definition
(see above), who were full term infants, appropriate for
gesta-tional age, between 2 and 8 weeks of age, with a weight gain of 5
ounces or more per week, and with a normal history and physical
exam were eligible for entrance into the study. Infants with
con-genital or acquired abnormalities which might predispose them to
irritability were excluded, as were infants with a prior or currently
diagnosed illness or a history of treatment for hyperbilirubinemia.
Possible subjects for the trial were identified during well child or
sick visits; caregivers were then questioned specifically to
estab-lish whether their infants fit the above criteria for inclusion in the study. A physical exam was performed; if normal, the study concept and design were described to the caretakers, as well as an
explanation of simethicone, its hypothesized effect, and lack of
side effects. Informed written consent was obtained. The Parent
Questionnaire (Fig. 1) and Initial Colic Assessment Form (Fig. 2) were completed. The Daily Diary (Fig. 3) for the first trial period
was explained and given to the caregiver along with the randomly
selected medication for the first period. Caregivers received
mod-est incentives (dependent on the individual study center) upon completion of both study periods. For example, Utah subjects
received $25 cash upon completion of both study periods, and
were not charged for initial or follow-up visits. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of each institution.
Study Design
The study followed a randomized, double blind, crossover
protocol, using outcome measures which could be utilized in a
practice setting and permit statistical evaluation. Each patient trial
consisted of two study periods of approximately I week each
(minimum, 3 days; maximum, 10 days.) Infants first received
either simethicone or placebo, based on a schedule determined by
random number tables, followed by the alternate substance for the
second study period. Caregivers were given a bottle of coded
medication and instructed to give 0.3 ml with each feeding. They
were asked to record in the Daily Diary each administration of medication and to provide written comments on any events
deemed noteworthy, including any modifications in dietary habits or feeding schedule. At the end of each day they were to rate their child’s colic compared to when they had first sought treatment for
the infant. A five-point scale was used to identify the child’s
symptoms as: definitely better or symptom-free (+2), possibly
better (+1), the same (0), possibly worse (-I), or definitely worse (-2).
After the first study period, caregivers returned the diary and
any unused medication to the physician’s office, or gave it to a
nurse study coordinator during a home visit. At this time, parents provided an overall response, ie, to the entire treatment period for the first medication on the same 5-point scale, ranging from +2 to -2. They were then provided with the alternative medication and
a new diary. At the end of the second treatment period the diary and any unused medication were again collected, and the overall score for that period was assigned by the caregiver. If the
present-ing symptoms were unresolved, the child was then treated at the discretion of the physician. Patients could be withdrawn from the study by their caregivers at any time for any reason, and patients were dropped from the trial if an intercurrent medical condition
developed.
Study medications were provided by Stuart Pharmaceuticals, then a Division of ICI Pharmaceuticals Group, and consisted of either simethicone (Mylicon Drops) or a placebo, indistinguish-able in taste, smell, and appearance from Mylicon. Patient consent
forms were designed at each center to conform with requirements of the respective Institutional Review Boards who approved the
study at each site.
Statistical Evaluation
Analysis of the data was performed by statisticians from Stuart
Pharmaceuticals and by an independent statistidan from the
Urn-versity of Utah. Based on the 5-point rating scale described above analysis of variance techniques appropriate for a crossover design were used. Results of the two statistical analyses were identical.
Daily Diaries of each patient were reviewed, scores for individual
days were averaged, and these were compared to the whole
number scores assigned by caregivers for each overall treatment
period. Since the two sets of scores were not significantly different,
the overall treatment period scores were used in the statistical
evaluation of the results.
Simethicone “Responders” were those infants judged by their caregivers to have had a positive response (+2 or +1) only to
simethicone, and no change or a negative response (0, -1 or -2) to placebo. Responders to placebo were similarly defined. For
purposes of analysis the first day of the second treatment period
was considered a washout period to allow the original condition
at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020
www.aappublications.org/news
- Both breast milk and formula
Fig 1. Parent Questionnaire.
_Yes
14. Does passing gas from his or her rectum seem to relieve the symptoms even
temporarily? _No ..Yes
15. How many stools does your baby have in a 24 hour period?
16. Does your baby have trouble passing astool?
17. Are your baby’s stools too hard?
_No _Yes
_No Yes
18. What have you tried to do to decrease your baby’s symptoms before coming in
today?
19. Are you doing any of these things now? ...Yes-please list below
PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. At what age was your baby when the problem began?...
2. What is your baby drinking?
...Breast milk ...jormula
3. If your baby is breast feeding, are you taking any medication?
No _Yes-Please list below
4. If your baby isbeing fed formula, what formula are you currently using?
Also, list any other formula you have previously used
5. Is your baby eating any solid foods?
..No .Yes-Please list below:
6. Does your baby spit up after feedings?
...No ....Yes-Is 1t ...Rarely ...Often ...Always
7. Does your baby seem to have a lot of gas? _No
8. Does your baby’s stomach seem swollen, bloated, or distended?_No _Yes
9. Does your baby pass a lot of gas from his or her rectum? ...No _Yes
10. Does your baby’s stomach growl gurgle or chum? Yes
1 1. Is your baby easy to burp after feedings? Yes
12. Are you able to burp your baby after every feeding? _Yes
13. Does burping seem to relieve his or her symptoms even temporarily? .No
to reassert itseff. Ratings for that day were not induded in the
analysis of data. Simethicone responders were compared to pla-cebo responders using either clii square of Student’s ttest depend-ing on the variable. Patients who failed to complete the stipulated
duration of both study periods were excluded from the study.
RESULTS
The study was carried out between March and
August of 1988. Ninety-two patients were enrolled
from the three centers. Eight were excluded for fail-ure to keep follow-up visits. One child developed an upper respiratory tract infection and was excluded. Eighty-three patients provided data adequate for
analysis. The demographic makeup of these 83
pa-tients is shown in Table 1. Racial composition and
feeding methods reflected the populations served by the three centers.
A total of 166 treatment periods were evaluated,
two for each infant. Treatment periods averaged 7
days with a range of 3 to 10 days. The length of the
treatment periods were influenced chiefly by
logisti-cal considerations including the parents’ or the re-search nurses’ schedules. Length of treatment period
did not vary with whether the infant was receiving
placebo or simethicone. As shown in Table 2, 89
(54%) of the treatment periods resulted in either
definite (28%) or probable (26%) improvement of
symptoms compared to baseline. Twenty-two
per-cent resulted in definite (11%) or probable (11%)
worsening of symptoms, and in 24% there was no
change. Forty-one of the 83 treatment periods (25%)
associated with simethicone administration and 48
(29%) of 83 associated with placebo resulted in def-mite or probable improvement. No significant
differ-ences were seen between simethicone and placebo
treatment periods in improvement or worsening. In Table 3, infants are divided into “Responders” (definite or probable improvement) to simethicone alone (no change or worsening with placebo,)
pla-cebo alone, or those who improved with both.
#2-definitely hrr.r iw cvmnrnm fr ii nncelhlv h.rr#{248}r. (
- mo/da/yr
--2
1
1
1
couc ASSESSMENT FORM
STUDY NO.
SUBJECT NO
SUBJECr IDENT: ISEX IBIRTHDATE IASST DATE
INAL SEVERITY OF COLIC
BIRTHWEIGHT PRESENT WEIGHT mild U moderate Ii
severefi
ORIGIN:
0WHiTE
DIAGNOSES 0Th
a
BLACK 0 HISPANIC 0 ASIAN U OTHER (specify)ER THAN COLIC ONONE
STUDY DRUG ADMiNISTRATION
TREATMENT FROM
PERIOD mo/da/vr
TO RESPONSE
(-2 to +21
Fig 2. Colic Assessment Form.
CONCOMITANT THERAPY (Include all therapy initiated during study) UNONE
COMPANY ThERAPY DOSE/FREQIJENCij FROM ‘1’ IND1CA’flON
IIvrThnv
ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Is PRIMARY CARE GIVER OTHER THAN PARENT(S)
caregiver (e.g. grandmother)
MOTHER FATHER CAREGIVER
AGE
EDUCA11ONAL LEVEl. A1TAINED
MARITAL STAThS
NUMBER OF CHILDREN
COMMENTS
INVESTIGATOR’S NAME
to simethicone, 31 (37%) infants were termed Placebo
Responders, and 17 (20%) showed improvement
with both agents. Twenty-one infants (15%) showed
no improvement with either agent. Analysis of the characteristics (sex, race, formula versus breast, or
whether the colic was rated as mild, moderate, or
severe) of those considered to be simethicone
re-sponders compared to the placebo responders
showed no statistically significant differences. Eval-uations of responses were done comparing infants
who received simethicone in the first treatment
pe-riod to those who received placebo first; no
statisti-cally significant differences were found. Finally, to
test the hypothesis that simethicone would have had
its greatest effect in infants whose colic was felt to be
secondary to intestinal gas, the group of infants
termed simethicone responders was compared to
placebo responders on the basis of the caregivers answering “yes” to the questions on the Parent Ques-tionnaire which defined a sub-group of “gassy’
in-fants (questions 7-14, Fig. 1). The number and
per-INVESTIGATOR’S SIGNATURE DATE (mo/da/yr)
centages of gassy infants in simethicone and placebo groups were not statistically different.
DISCUSSION
Our study is in agreement with that of Danielsson
and Hwang in 27 infants in 1985. Both their study
and ours showed that treatment with either
simethi-cone or placebo produced improvement in
symp-toms more than twice as often as either resulted in no
change or worsening of symptoms. They suggested
that the improvement might be due to a tendency for
colic symptoms to lessen as infants aged. Since
im-provement in our infants was as likely to occur dur-ing the first as during the second treatment period,
and since we studied a population between 2 and 8
weeks of age, the time of increasing intensity of
colic.2’ the improvement we found is unlikely to be
due to a natural decrease in symptoms with
increas-ing age. A more plausible explanation is that the
perceived improvement from the treatments was
Fig 3. Daily Diary.
COMPARED TO ThE PERIODBEFORE THE STUDY BEGAN, YOUR GIILD’S
CONDITION TODAY WAS:
UDEFINITELY BETI’ERORSYMPTOM FREE 0 POSSIBLY BE1TER U SAME
0 POSSIBLY WORSE U DEFINITELY WORSE
WAS ANY GIANGE MADE IN ThE CHILD’S DIET OR FEEDING SCHEDULE?
UNO DYES (Explain)
WERE ANY MEDICATIONS OilIER ThAN STUDY MEDICATIONS GIVEN TODAY?
0NO U YES (Indicate medication, dosage and time given)
DID THE S11JDY MEDICATION HAVE ANY UNEXPECTED EFFECF?
U NO U YES (explain)
EPISODES OF COLIC
DURATION
TIME (main)
INDICATE (X)
AM PM
INDICATE SEVERflY (X)
MILD MOD SEVERE
DAILY DIARY
STUDY MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION
TIME
DATE (mo/da/yr)
INDICATE (X)
AM PM
TABLE 1. Demographics
NC UT VT Total
Males 10 23 8 41
Females 13 20 9 42
White 13 40 17 70
Black 10 0 0 10
Hispanic 0 2 0 2
Asian 0 1 0 1
Breast-fed 2 14 6 22
Formula-fed 16 16 10 42
Breast/formula 5 13 1 19
Mildcolic 3 8 0 11
Moderate colic 11 27 11 49
Severe colic 9 6 5 20
positive effects of simethicone noted in our earlier pilot study and in other open label
studies.#{176}Differ-ent results were reported by Sethi and Sethi,31 who
showed significant decreases in both the frequency and amplitude of daily crying spells in infants given
simethicone compared to those receiving placebo.
Deficiencies in their study include the lack of a clear definition of colic for study entry and a relatively small number of
subjects?-Simethicone would be an appealing agent to
re-lieve the symptoms of colicky infants if it were effec-five. It has a very narrow range of purported
thera-peutic activity, ie, it reduces intestinal gas by
decreasing its transit time within the gut.
More-over, being inert and not absorbed from the gastro-intestinal tract, it has no dangerous side effects, an important consideration in treating a self-limited dis-order. The fact that it is no more effective than pla-cebo suggests that intestinal gas is not playing any
substantial role in the symptoms of colic. Indeed,
even in the infants in our study whose parents noted
many symptoms of “gas,” placebo was as effective as
simethicone in reducing the amount of crying. The
presence of “gas” may be simply a marker of colic
and air swallowing rather than a cause; thus reduc-ing gas would not be expected to provide relief.
There is little data to support the notion that colic is a pathological process, or that the colicky infant is
in any way abnormal,1’ but the explanation for the
excessive crying remains elusive. Fussy, crying in-fants may be seeking more doseness to their caregivers.
Hunziker and Barr demonstrated that increasing the
TABLE 2. Effect of Treatment Number (%) of Treatment Periods Showing Change
Agent Definite
Improvement
Probable
Improvement
No
Change
Probable
Worsening
Definite
Worsening
Total
Simethicone 20 (12) 21 (13) 23 (14) 9 (5) 10 (6) 83
Placebo 26 (16) 22(13) 16 (10) 10 (6) 9 (5) 83
Total 46 (28) 43 (26) 39 (24) 19 (11) 19 (11) 166
TABLE 3. Number (%) of Infants Showing Improvement to
Simethicone, Placebo, or Both
Definite or Partial
Improvement
Simethicone alone 23(28)
Placebo alone 31(37)
Both 17(20)
Total 71 (85)
and fussiness and increased contentment in normal
infants.32 When employed as a treatment for colicky infants, increased carrying was ineffective.’8
Recom-mendations made during prenatal and health
mainte-nance visits that parents hold and carry their infants, explaining normal and excessive crying,17 and ways to respond to the crying13 may prevent the need for med-ications, formula changes, or other methods to treat well-entrenched colic later on. Being supportive and empathic as well as offering step-by-step instructions for what to do when the infant is crying along the lines suggested by Taubman’3 are likely to be the most help-flil things that physicians can do. Physicians who ad-vise the use of simethicone, or acquiesce to its use by
parents, should realize they are advocating the use of
an expensive ($7.00 to $10.00 for 30 ml in Salt Lake City) placebo, albeit an apparently harmless one.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Supported by a grant from Stuart Pharmaceuticals; formerly a
division of ICI Pharmaceutical Group.
REFERENCES
1. Weasel AM, CobbJC,Jackson EB, Harris CS, Detwiler AC. Paroxysmal
fussing in infancy sometimes called “colic.” Pediatrics. 1954;14:421-435
2. Brazelton TB. Crying in infancy. Pediatrics. 196229:579-588
3. Paradise JS. Maternal and other factors in the etiology of infantile colic.
JAMA. 1966;197:191-199
4. Thomas DB. Aetiological associations in infantile colic: an hypothesis
Aust Paediatr J.1981;17:292-295
5. Asnes RS, Mones RL Infantile colic: a review. JBeh Dev Pediatr. 1982;
4:57-62
6. Carey WB. Colic: exasperating but fascinating gratifying. Pediatrics.
198984:568-569
7. Lothe L, Lindberg T, Jakobsson I. Cow’s milk formula as a cause of
infantile colic: a double-blind study. Pediatrics. 1982;70:7-11
8. Jakobsson I, Lindberg T. Cow’s milk proteins cause infantile colic in
breast-fed infants: a double-blind cross-over study. Pediatrics. 1983;71:
268-272
9. Thomas DW, McGilligan K, Eisenberg, LD, Lieberman HM, Rissman
EM. Infantile colic and type of milk feeding. Am IDis Child. 1987;141: 451-453
10. Forsyth BWC. Colic and theeffect ofchanging formulas: a double-blind,
multiple-crossover study. IPediatr. 1989;115:521-526
ii. Stewart MI, Weiland DIH, Leider AR, Mangham CA, Holmes TH,
Ripley HS. Excessive infant crying (colic) in relation to parent behavior.
Am IPsychiatry. 1954;11O:687-694
12. Carey WB. “Colic”-Primary excessive crying as an
infant-environment interaction. Pediatr Clin North Am. 198431:993-1005
13. Taubman B. Clinical trial of the treatment of colic by modification of
parent-infant interaction. Pediatrics. 1984;74:998-1003
14. llhingworth RS. Crying in infants and children. Br Med I. 1955;75-78 15. Spock B. Etiological factors in hypertrophic pyloric stenosis and
infan-tile colic. Psychosoma Med. 1944;6:162-165
16. Aldrich CA, Sung C, Knop C. The crying of newly born babies. I Pediatr. 194527:428-435
17. SChmitt BD. The prevention of sleep problems and colic. Pediatr Clin North Am. 198633:763-774
18. Barr RG, MCMUIIan SJ,Heinz S, et al. Carrying as colic “therapy”: a
randomized controlled triaL Pediatrics. 1991;87:623-630
19. Loadman WE, Arnold K, Voilmer R, Petrella R, Cooper 12, Niswander
P. SleepTight. Pediatr Res. 1987;21:182A. Abstract.
20. Taubman B. Parental counseling compared with elimination of cow’s milk or soy milk protein for the treatment of infant colic syndrome: a
randomized triaL Pediatrics. 198881:756-761
21. llhingworth RS. Evening colic in infants a double-blind trial of
dicydo-mine hydrochloride. Lancet. 1959;2:1119-1120
22. Weissbluth M, Christoffel KK, Davis AT. Treatment of infantile colic
with dicyclomine hydrochloride. JPediatr. 1984;104:951-955
23. Gonzalez JF. “Dear Doctor.” Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Novem-ber 19, 1984. Letter.
24. Weissbluth M. Dicydomine in infantile colic. I Pediatr. 1984;1O5:503-504 25. Danhof IE, Stavola JJ.Accelerated transit of intestinal gas with
simethi-cone. Obstet Gynecol. 1974;44:148-154
26. Kimura KK, Treon JF,Benson FR. Therapeutic use of methylpolysiox-ane. Curr Ther Res. 1964;6:202-216
27. Panel Members. Final report on the safety assessment of Dimethicone
Copolyol. JAm Coil Toxicol. 1982;1:33-54
28. DuggerJA, Inchaustegui SR. The use of sificones as an approach to the
management of infantile colic. IMich State Med Assoc. 1963;62:46-49
29. Danielsson B, Hwang CP. Treatment of infantile colic with surface
active substance (simethicone). Acta Pediatr Scand. 1985;74:446-450 30. Becker N, Lombardi P. Sidoti E, Katlin LS. Mylicon drops in the
treat-ment of infant colic. Clin Ther. 1988;1O:401-405
31. SetH KS, Satin JK. Simethicone in the management of infant colic. The Practitioner. 1988232:508
32. Hunziker UA, Barr RG. increased carrying reduces infant crying: a randomized controlled triaL Pediatrics. 1986;77:641-648
at Viet Nam:AAP Sponsored on September 1, 2020
www.aappublications.org/news