Citranatal Harmony, Colace, Docusol, Docusol Plus, Dok, Dulcolax, Enemeez, Enemeez Plus, Ferralet 90, Laxacin, Pedia-lax Liquid, Peri-colace Reformulated Feb 2008, Phillips Stool Softener, Promolaxin, Senexon S, Senokot-S
Small Molecule
C20H38O7S
10041-19-7
Constipation, Occasional Constipation
Docusate is a stool-softening laxative that is widely utilized for the prevention and treatment of occasional constipation.[1] First introduced in the 1950s, its long history of use and broad availability in numerous over-the-counter (OTC) formulations have cemented its status as one of the most commonly prescribed agents for this indication, particularly within the inpatient hospital setting.[2] This ubiquity, however, stands in stark contrast to a substantial and growing body of clinical evidence that questions its efficacy.
This report addresses a central paradox in modern pharmacotherapy: the profound disconnect between docusate's pervasive clinical use and the data from numerous clinical trials and systematic reviews that demonstrate its lack of efficacy when compared to placebo.[5] This paradox is not a new discovery; for decades, studies have failed to show a meaningful benefit for docusate in softening stool or increasing the frequency of bowel movements.[5] Yet, its prescription remains a common practice, a phenomenon that can be described as a form of "medical dogma." The persistence of docusate use appears to be a classic example of clinical inertia, where a treatment is continued out of tradition and a perception of safety rather than a foundation of proven benefit, fitting the description of a "Thing We Do For No Reason".[5]
The objective of this report is to provide a definitive, evidence-based synthesis of docusate's pharmacology, clinical trial data, and place in therapy. By critically examining the evidence, this analysis aims to resolve the paradox of its continued use and provide clear, actionable recommendations for clinicians, pharmacists, and healthcare systems. Ultimately, docusate serves as a compelling case study in the challenges of implementing evidence-based medicine and the difficult but necessary process of de-prescribing ingrained yet ineffective therapies.[9]
Docusate is the common pharmaceutical name for the anion bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate.[11] The structural formula is represented as
R−O−C(=O)−CH(SO3−)−CH2−C(=O)−O−R, where R is the 2-ethylhexyl group.[11] It is classified as an anionic surfactant and physically appears as a white, wax-like, plastic solid with an odor suggestive of octyl alcohol.[11]
Docusate is available as several different salts, each with a unique Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number. The primary CAS Number for the docusate free acid is 10041-19-7.[14] The most common salt forms include:
Docusate is marketed in a wide array of formulations for both oral and rectal administration.[12] Oral formulations include capsules containing either the sodium or calcium salt, tablets, and liquid or syrup preparations.[21] It is recommended that oral liquid forms be diluted with milk, fruit juice, or infant formula to mask their inherent bitter taste.[21] Rectal administration is accomplished via enemas containing docusate sodium.[21]
The drug is sold under a vast number of brand names, with Colace® being the most widely recognized. Other common brand names include Dulcolax Stool Softener®, Surfak®, DOK®, Dioctyl®, and Docusol®.[1] Docusate is also a frequent component of combination products, most notably with the stimulant laxative senna (e.g., Senna-S®, Peri-Colace®, Colace 2-in-1®) or with iron supplements to mitigate the constipating effects of iron.[13] The various available formulations and typical dosing regimens are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Docusate Formulations, Brand Names, and Dosing Regimens
| Salt Form | Formulation | Common Strengths | Common Brand Names | Typical Adult Dosage | Typical Pediatric Dosage (age) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Docusate Sodium | Oral Capsules / Softgels | 50 mg, 100 mg, 250 mg | Colace®, DSS®, DOK®, Dulcolax Stool Softener® | 50-400 mg daily, single or divided doses 34 | 50-150 mg daily (2-12 yrs) 21 |
| | Oral Liquid / Syrup | 10 mg/mL, 50 mg/15 mL | Docusol®, Colace® | 50-400 mg daily, single or divided doses 34 | 20-60 mg daily (3-6 yrs); 40-150 mg daily (6-12 yrs) 34 |
| | Rectal Enema | 100 mg/5 mL, 283 mg/5 mL | Enemeez Mini®, DocuSol® | 200-283 mg once or twice daily 34 | 50-100 mg once daily (3-18 yrs) 34 |
| Docusate Calcium | Oral Capsules | 240 mg | Surfak®, Kaopectate® | 240 mg once daily 21 | Safety and efficacy not established (<12 yrs) 21 |
| Docusate Potassium | Oral Capsules | 100 mg, 240 mg | Diocto-K® | 50-400 mg daily, single or divided doses 34 | >12 years: 50-400 mg daily 34 |
Docusate is widely available over-the-counter (OTC) without a prescription.[3] Its long-standing presence has led to its inclusion on the World Health Organization's (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines, where it is listed under the section for medicines for common symptoms in palliative care.[35] This designation, however, presents a significant contradiction when viewed against the evidence of its inefficacy. The WHO list is intended to comprise the most effective, safe, and cost-efficient medicines for priority health conditions. Docusate's inclusion appears to be a legacy decision based on historical use and perceived safety rather than on proven clinical value, especially as modern palliative care guidelines from organizations like the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians now recommend
against its use.[8] This discrepancy highlights the slow pace of change in global health recommendations and the difficulty in de-implementing a long-standing therapy, even when its utility is disproven.
Docusate is produced by numerous manufacturers. Syensqo (formerly Cytec Industries) is a premier manufacturer of pharmaceutical-grade docusate sodium, and many generic versions are produced by companies such as Major Pharmaceuticals and Rugby Laboratories.[38] These products are manufactured in FDA-approved facilities under current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP).[38]
Beyond its medical applications, docusate sodium is also approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) food additive. In this capacity, it serves as an emulsifier, dispersant, and wetting agent in various products, including pasteurized cheese spreads and carbonated beverages.[11] Industrially, it is widely used as a surfactant under the trade name Aerosol-OT.[11]
Docusate is classified pharmacologically as an emollient laxative, or more commonly, a stool softener.[44] Its primary proposed mechanism of action is based on its properties as an anionic surfactant.[11] According to this theory, docusate lowers the surface tension at the oil-water interface of the fecal mass within the colon. This reduction in surface tension is thought to allow water and lipids to better penetrate the stool, resulting in a softer, more hydrated fecal mass that is easier to pass, thereby alleviating straining.[13]
In addition to its surfactant properties, some evidence suggests that docusate may exert a mild secretagogue effect in the small intestine. Studies have indicated that docusate can inhibit fluid absorption and stimulate the secretion of water and electrolytes into the jejunum, a mechanism possibly mediated by an increase in intracellular cyclic AMP.[14] However, this effect is considered to be of minor clinical significance compared to its primary role as a surfactant.
The pharmacokinetics of docusate are not fully elucidated, and there is some conflicting information in the literature. While some sources suggest it is minimally absorbed and acts locally, leading to the conclusion that standard pharmacokinetic parameters do not apply, the weight of evidence indicates that this is not entirely accurate.[13]
The confirmation that docusate is systemically absorbed and metabolized is of critical clinical importance, as it provides the biological rationale for its most significant drug interaction. If docusate were truly unabsorbed, its potential to systemically affect other drugs would be negligible. However, its absorption explains its well-documented interaction with mineral oil.[1] Docusate's surfactant properties facilitate the gastrointestinal absorption of mineral oil, which is normally not absorbed. This can lead to a systemic foreign body reaction and inflammation in the intestinal mucosa, liver, spleen, and lymph nodes.[13] Therefore, a correct understanding of docusate's pharmacokinetics is essential for preventing this potentially harmful drug interaction.
The clinical utility of docusate has been a subject of debate for decades. Despite its widespread use, a systematic review of the available evidence reveals a consistent pattern of inefficacy, particularly when subjected to the rigor of randomized controlled trials.
Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate a benefit for docusate over placebo in treating or preventing constipation.[5] This is not a recent finding but a consistent conclusion from studies spanning several decades.
The collective results of these trials, summarized in Table 2, provide strong evidence that docusate is not superior to placebo for the management of constipation.
Table 2: Summary of Key Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Docusate Efficacy vs. Placebo
| Year | Patient Population | Intervention | Comparator | Key Outcomes | Reference(s) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1976 | 34 elderly medical patients | Docusate Sodium 100 mg BID | No laxative (control) | No significant difference in frequency or character of bowel movements. | 5 |
| 1985 | 12 healthy volunteers/ileostomy patients | Docusate Sodium 100 mg TID | Placebo | No effect on stool weight, frequency, water content, or transit time. | 5 |
| 1991 | 15 elderly nursing home residents | Docusate Calcium 240 mg BID | Placebo | No difference in bowel movements per week or need for rescue laxatives. | 5 |
| 1998 | 170 adults with chronic constipation | Docusate Sodium 100 mg BID | Placebo, Psyllium | No effect on stool water content or frequency; inferior to psyllium. | 5 |
| 2005 | 74 hospice patients | Docusate 200 mg BID (with senna) | Placebo (with senna) | No difference in stool frequency, volume, or consistency. | 5 |
When compared directly to other classes of laxatives, docusate consistently proves to be a less effective option. As demonstrated in the 1998 trial, the bulk-forming agent psyllium was found to be superior to docusate for increasing both stool water content and frequency.[5] Modern clinical guidelines strongly favor osmotic laxatives like polyethylene glycol (PEG), often without even considering docusate as a relevant comparator due to the lack of supporting evidence.[6] The common practice of combining docusate with a stimulant laxative, such as in Senna-S® products, implicitly acknowledges docusate's inability to stimulate a bowel movement on its own; the stimulant provides the motility while docusate is intended to soften the stool, an effect which itself is not supported by evidence.[31]
Docusate is frequently prescribed for the prophylaxis and treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC), a particularly challenging type of constipation caused by the effects of opioids on gut motility. However, the evidence base for this practice is exceptionally weak.[9] The 2005 RCT in hospice patients, a population with high opioid use, found no benefit in adding docusate to a stimulant laxative regimen.[5] A more recent medication use evaluation in a long-term care facility concluded that adding docusate to other bowel regimens for OIC did not reduce the need for rescue laxatives.[9] Consequently, clinical guidelines for OIC either do not recommend docusate or do so with a very low level of confidence, citing a lack of supporting evidence.[8]
A critical and often overlooked harm associated with using docusate is the therapeutic delay it introduces. Given its oral onset of action of 1 to 3 days, prescribing docusate as a first-line agent means a patient with constipation receives a therapy with placebo-level efficacy for a significant period.[13] This delays the initiation of a proven, effective treatment like PEG or a stimulant laxative.[59] During this delay, the patient's constipation can worsen, leading to increased discomfort, fecal impaction, and the subsequent need for more invasive and costly interventions like enemas or manual disimpaction. Thus, the seemingly "safe" and "gentle" choice to start with docusate can be interpreted as a harmful one, as it represents a failure to provide timely and effective care.
An analysis of major clinical practice guidelines for constipation reveals a significant gap between evidence and historical practice, with the most current, high-level guidelines effectively excluding docusate as a recommended therapy.
The 2023 joint guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) on the pharmacological management of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is particularly telling. Despite including surfactant laxatives like docusate in the initial scope of their systematic review, the final guideline explicitly states that no assessment or recommendation was provided for this class of drugs.[6] The authors note that prior guidelines had identified only small, methodologically flawed RCTs showing no superiority to placebo and inferiority to psyllium.[6] This omission by the leading gastroenterology societies in the United States is a powerful statement on docusate's lack of standing in modern, evidence-based management of constipation.
Similarly, guidelines from the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) for managing constipation in patients with advanced cancer do not recommend docusate, citing inadequate evidence.[8] In contrast, some older or more general guidelines may still list stool softeners as a therapeutic option, though often as a step to be taken after more effective agents like osmotic laxatives have been tried.[61] The discrepancies among various guidelines are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Docusate in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Constipation
| Guideline Issuing Body | Year | Indication | Recommendation for Docusate | Reference(s) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| AGA / ACG | 2023 | Chronic Idiopathic Constipation | No recommendation provided. The panel explicitly excluded surfactant laxatives from their final recommendations due to a lack of quality evidence. | 6 |
| ESMO | 2018 | Constipation in Advanced Cancer | Not recommended. Stool softeners are generally not recommended due to inadequate evidence. | 8 |
| AAFP | 2015 | Chronic Constipation | Listed as a therapeutic option, typically after osmotic laxatives. | 61 |
| AGA (on OIC) | 2019 | Opioid-Induced Constipation | Recommends traditional laxatives as first-line, but acknowledges the evidence for docusate is weak. | 8 |
Despite the overwhelming negative evidence and its omission from key clinical guidelines, docusate remains one of the most frequently prescribed laxatives in institutional settings.[4] This persistence can be attributed to several factors that constitute the "docusate dogma." First, its long history of use has embedded it deeply within hospital formularies, pre-printed order sets, and the training of generations of clinicians. Second, it is widely perceived as a benign and safe agent, a perception that often overlooks the harm of therapeutic delay.[59] Third, the low unit cost of generic docusate creates the illusion of cost-effectiveness, which fails to account for the larger systemic costs associated with administration (nursing time) and the management of treatment failure.[4] Finally, the very name "stool softener" is intuitively appealing to both clinicians and patients, suggesting a direct and gentle solution to the problem of hard stools, even if this effect is not clinically demonstrable.
While generally well-tolerated, docusate is not without potential side effects. The most commonly reported adverse events are mild and gastrointestinal in nature, including stomach pain, abdominal cramping, and diarrhea.[1] Liquid formulations can cause throat irritation if not properly diluted.[22]
Serious side effects are rare but can occur. Anaphylaxis, a severe allergic reaction, has been reported, manifesting as skin rash, hives, swelling of the face, lips, or tongue, and difficulty breathing.[1] The development of rectal bleeding after administration is a serious sign and warrants immediate medical evaluation.[1] Anecdotal user reports have mentioned other effects such as vertigo and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), though these are not well-established in the medical literature.[67]
Docusate is contraindicated in patients with known hypersensitivity to the drug, intestinal obstruction, fecal impaction, or symptoms of appendicitis (e.g., nausea, vomiting, acute abdominal pain).[66] The rectal enema formulation should not be used in patients with active hemorrhoids, anal fissures, or inflammatory bowel disease such as ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease.[68]
Use for longer than one week is not recommended without consulting a healthcare provider. Chronic use can lead to electrolyte imbalances (from persistent diarrhea) and potential laxative dependence, where the bowel loses its ability to function properly on its own.[1]
The most important and well-documented drug interaction is with mineral oil. Docusate should not be administered concurrently with mineral oil laxatives.[1] As a surfactant, docusate enhances the systemic absorption of mineral oil, which can lead to the formation of foreign-body granulomas and inflammation in the intestinal mucosa, liver, spleen, and lymph nodes.[13]
Due to its surfactant properties, docusate could theoretically increase the absorption of other co-administered oral drugs. Therefore, some clinicians advise caution when using it with medications that have a narrow therapeutic index.[50] Additionally, drug databases list numerous potential interactions where docusate may decrease the therapeutic efficacy of drugs with anticholinergic properties that slow gut motility, effectively counteracting any potential laxative effect.[48]
The continued use of docusate presents an economic paradox. While the unit cost of a generic docusate capsule is low, its high prescription volume translates into a substantial and unnecessary financial burden on the healthcare system.[63] A study conducted at a single U.S. tertiary care center found that the average annual expenditure on docusate exceeded $25,000.[63] A similar analysis at McGill University Health Centre in Canada reported annual costs approaching $60,000, with a crucial finding that direct drug costs accounted for only 25% of the total expense; the remaining 75% was attributed to the labor costs of nursing administration.[4]
When these single-center costs are extrapolated across the thousands of hospitals in the United States, the national economic burden of this ineffective medication likely amounts to tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars annually.[63]
Docusate represents a prime target for institutional deprescribing initiatives aimed at eliminating low-value care.[9] The financial resources allocated to docusate could be redirected to interventions with proven clinical benefit and greater cost-effectiveness. One analysis calculated that the funds spent on docusate at a single hospital in one year could have instead paid for nearly 1,400 doses of polyethylene glycol 3350, over 3,800 doses of lactulose, or over 4,500 doses of psyllium—all laxatives with superior evidence of efficacy.[10] The removal of docusate from hospital formularies and standardized electronic order sets is a clear, evidence-based strategy to reduce polypharmacy, lower healthcare costs, and, most importantly, improve patient outcomes by ensuring that individuals with constipation receive effective treatment in a timely manner.[10]
This comprehensive review has systematically established that docusate, also known as dioctyl sulfosuccinate, is a medication with a plausible but clinically unproven mechanism of action. For over four decades, randomized controlled trials have consistently failed to demonstrate that docusate is superior to placebo for treating constipation or softening stool. Furthermore, in head-to-head comparisons, it is less effective than other available laxative classes. Its continued, widespread use exemplifies a form of "medical dogma," sustained by historical precedent and a flawed perception of its risk-benefit profile, which fails to recognize the clinical harm of therapeutic delay and the significant, cumulative economic burden it imposes on the healthcare system.
Based on a critical appraisal of the available evidence, the following recommendations are made for clinical practice:
The story of docusate serves as a powerful reminder of the imperative to critically and continuously re-evaluate long-standing clinical practices against the highest standards of evidence. Moving beyond the "docusate dogma" is a necessary step toward a more rational, evidence-based, and cost-effective approach to managing one of the most common problems in medicine. Future research should focus not on re-proving docusate's inefficacy—a question that has been answered repeatedly—but on understanding and overcoming the systemic and cultural barriers that impede the de-implementation of ineffective therapies throughout healthcare.
Published at: June 19, 2025
This report is continuously updated as new research emerges.