Talk:Gaviscon

Dual action, advertisement?

FWIW, Gaviscon seems to be the only such dual-action antacid available in the U.S. I've had stomach problems for 20 years, had my first ulcer before we knew about H. pylori, and I'd never even heard of alginic acid until I read an article that linked to this one. I just ran out and bought some, in fact... ask me in 30 minutes if it worked. Tastes nasty, though. Worse-than-Pepto kind of nasty.

Anyway, the article seems pretty neutral now - I mean, we could add a "Controversies" section and talk about the Pro-Stomach-Acid March of 2006 (secretly sponsored by Big Hydrochlor), but other than that, it didn't feel like an advertisement... does it still merit the tag? --JayLevitt (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The only? You were maybe right, but there seems to be a new product from Life Extension that has dual and perhaps even triple action: <external link removed> I wish I knew more about adverse effects, if there are any. 88.192.242.201 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Presence of alginic acid

I just went out to Walgreens here in Texas 10 minutes ago to get some of this Gaviscon and found that many of the preparations had ONLY calcium carbonate as the active ingredient (and sold for $10 per bottle!!) Some others had an aluminum hydroxide (sp?) ingredient. Nowhere did I see the alginate. Therefore I am raising the accuracy flag. -Rolypolyman (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Took a closer look and the ingredient is indeed in there, but hidden in the bottom and not on "active ingredients". I'm rescinding my accuracy flag.-Rolypolyman (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of Gaviscon is the alginic acid in it. If it's not an active ingredient of the product you saw, then I would question taking that product. --IO Device (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Alginic acid is not listed as an Active ingredient because it is not biologically active. That doesn't mean it has no function. It is used as an antacid rafting agent:

• [1] "The term "antacid rafting agent", as used herein, refers to the combination of one or more antacid agents and at least one alginate compound wherein, after ingested, the antacid floats on the stomach contents. Any alginate compound can be utilized herein and includes, but is not limited to: alginic acid, sodium, calcium, and potassium alginate, and propylene glycol alginate" {emphasis added}
• [2] "Alginate-based raft-forming formulations have been marketed word-wide for over 30 years under various brand names, including Gaviscon. They are used for the symptomatic treatment of heartburn and oesophagitis, and appear to act by a unique mechanism which differs from that of traditional antacids. In the presence of gastric acid, alginates precipitate, forming a gel. Alginate-based raft-forming formulations usually contain sodium or potassium bicarbonate; in the presence of gastric acid, the bicarbonate is converted to carbon dioxide which becomes entrapped within the gel precipitate, converting it into a foam which floats on the surface of the gastric contents, much like a raft on water. Both in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated that alginate-based rafts can entrap carbon dioxide, as well as antacid components contained in some formulations, thus providing a relatively pH-neutral barrier. Several studies have demonstrated that the alginate raft can preferentially move into the oesophagus in place, or ahead, of acidic gastric contents during episodes of gastro-oesophageal reflux; some studies further suggest that the raft can act as a physical barrier to reduce reflux episodes. Although some alginate-based formulations also contain antacid components which can provide significant acid neutralization capacity, the efficacy of these formulations to reduce heartburn symptoms does not appear to be totally dependent on the neutralization of bulk gastric contents. The strength of the alginate raft is dependant on several factors, including the amount of carbon dioxide generated and entrapped in the raft, the molecular properties of the alginate, and the presence of aluminium or calcium in the antacid components of the formulation. Raft formation occurs rapidly, often within a few seconds of dosing; hence alginate-containing antacids are comparable to traditional antacids for speed of onset of relief. Since the raft can be retained in the stomach for several hours, alginate-based raft-forming formulations can additionally provide longer-lasting relief than that of traditional antacids. Indeed, clinical studies have shown Gaviscon is superior to placebo, and equal to or significantly better than traditional antacids for relieving heartburn symptoms. Alginate-based, raft-forming formulations have been used to treat reflux symptoms in infants and children, and in the management of heartburn and reflux during pregnancy. While Gaviscon is effective when used alone, it is compatible with, and does not interfere with the activity of antisecretory agents such as cimetidine. Even with the introduction of new antisecretory and promotility agents, alginate-rafting formulations will continue to have a role in the treatment of heartburn and reflux symptoms. Their unique non-systemic mechanism of action provides rapid and long-duration relief of heartburn and acid reflux symptoms." {emphasis added}

Note that Gaviscon is not the only brand that uses an antacid rafting agent, e.g., Mylanta® Heartburn relief as sold in Australia and New Zealand.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --IO Device (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian product

The Canadian product does not contain any antacid. It only contains alginate as its medicinal ingredient.

Not true - every bottle of Gaviscon tablets I've purchased in Toronto has listed as the Medicinal Ingredients: Alginic Acid and Magnesium Carbonate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.217.48 (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

UK product

The RB UK formula is totaly different from the GSK formulas. The UK formula has sodium alginate listed as the first active ingredient — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriannlesley (talk • contribs) 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference? Then we can update the article. Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Safety concerns

I've two important safety concerns:

• Assuming alginic acid is based on sodium alginate, is this absorbed into the body, or does it pass unabsorbed? If it is absorbed, then shouldn't I be worried about adding excessive sodium to my diet? Also the sodium bicarbonate present in this product adds to one's intake of sodium. Each regular strength Gaviscon pill is listed as having 21 mg of sodium. Fortunately this is not a substantial amount even with a lot of pills consumed daily, but if I had high blood pressure, I'd be slightly concerned.
• The product contains aluminum hydroxide. There is research still being done to assess the toxicity of aluminum, especially as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease. A 2009 study showed that a high daily intake of aluminum was significantly associated with increased risk of dementia [3]. Even a single pill of this product would add too much aluminum to one's diet. Why then would anyone want to take this product? Also read [4].

I agree with this comment, Aluminium is a known neurotoxin and should not be in over the counter medicines, especially in the extremely bio-available form of AlOH, both the original author of the page and various Gaviscon websites underplay or omit AlOH as an active ingredient. 80.192.15.175 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Colin Forrest80.192.15.175 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to especially the second concern, I'm afraid I give a thumbs down to this product, and do not recommend its consumption. --IO Device (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you looking to update the article in this regard? Note that you'd need reliable sources discussing these risks specifically with Gaviscon. To do otherwise would be original research or synthesis. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to connect the dots. Any intelligent reader can do that. There is sufficient data to show that sodium is harmful and aluminum is harmful. If and when I mention these points in the article, I don't need to mention Gaviscon. Your point that I need reliable sources discussing these risks specifically with Gaviscon is irrelevant and meaningless because I won't be making that claim. Show me the rule that says you can't have related info in an article. If you remove any relevant cited info about harm from specific ingredients from the article, you'll be whitewashing it, and you'll be immediately reported to an administrator for it. --IO Device (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Chill. Assume good faith, and avoid making threats. Feel free to open a report at WP:ANI - but watch out for WP:BOOMERANGS. JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I was chill until you raised the tension. You seem to have a bias in favor of Gaviscon, and seem to want to own this article. You then come along telling me what you think I can and can't do, even though no edits to the article were made yet, and your wise opinion was never requested. You've already whitewashed this article once, and this kind of behavior won't fly. This is not over yet. --IO Device (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit away! No offense intended by my question, and sorry you appeared to take offense. FYI:

• I have this article watchlisted, not WP:OWNed, as is the case for anything I edit. Anyone can edit articles (even me).
• I answered your earlier question in the talk page (to which you replied "thanks") based on reliable sources.
• I saw another comment from you here. In light of your earlier comment, I couldn't tell if you planned to edit the article and were previewing you're point of view (which is great), or if you just had a question about the product.
  • If the former, I was noting the need to add information that is not WP:OR or WP:SYN (and not WP:UNDUE, too).
  • If the latter, that's not the purpose of talk pages - see WP:NOTFORUM.
• Accusations such as "You seem to have a bias in favor of Gaviscon, and seem to want to own this article" are neither helpful,nor assuming of good faith. Try WP:WIKILOVE, instead.
• Please discuss the article here. Not your concerns about my behavior (feel free to file a complaint at WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U, if you feel I've been inappropriate. I don't think so, but your milage may vary), nor (if that's your intent - which is why I asked) your concerns about the subject of the article. There are good places online to get advice about health products, or to offer opinions about health products, but WP is not one of them.
• Per WP:BRD, it is not necessary to preview your changes to an article on the talk page. Sometimes it is a good idea to do so, especially if you think your change may be controversial.
• Regardless, everything we do here should comply with the Wikipedia:Five_pillars.

So, edit away. If you'd like help or advice, feel free to post here with your thoughts. If the article is incomplete, incorrect, or biased - fix it! Just remember the key idea behind WP:SYN in particular: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources". That was the point I was trying to make, and it applies to every article on every topic on WP.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding the bias you accuse me of, I don't care one whit about the subject of this article nor its manufacturer, nor do I work for them nor in that industry. I don't even take the product. Just like I don't care about, nor have any Conflict of Interest, with PepsiCo, Function Drinks, Clark's Pies, nor any of the many other articles I've edited over the years and so have watchlisted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)