Randomised clinical trial: Polyethylene glycol 3350 with sports drink vs. polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution as purgatives for colonoscopy--the incidence of hyponatraemia

A Phase 2 evaluation of a new flavored peg and sulfate solution compared to an over-the-counter laxative, peg and sports drink bowel preparation combination

BACKGROUND

Acceptability and tolerance of bowel preparation is critical to overcome patient hesitancy in undergoing colon cancer screening and surveillance colonoscopy. To improve patient experience, a new sports drink-flavored bowel preparation containing polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sulfate salts (FPSS) was developed to provide a similar experience to a commonly used but not United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved PEG and sports drink bowel preparation (PEG-SD), while also achieving improved cleansing efficacy.

METHODS

This FPSS preparation, approved by the FDA in June 2023, was evaluated in a non-randomized Phase 2 study in which 40 patients requiring colonoscopy were prepared with FPSS and 20 with PEG-SD.

RESULTS

Overall cleansing success was high with FPSS based on unblinded local endoscopist assessment (93%) and blinded central reading (97%), exceeding PEG-SD which achieved success rates of 84% (local read), 74% and 68% (blinded central reads). Similar differences favoring FPSS were seen for excellent preparations and cleansing success by colon segment as rated by local endoscopists. Both preparations were well-tolerated, with 93% of FPSS patients rating their preparation as Tolerable to Very Easy to consume, compared to 100% of PEG-SD. Patients who had previously taken a preparation for colonoscopy found FPSS and PEG-SD better than their prior preparation (73% and 70%, respectively) and nearly all would request their assigned study preparation again in the future. About two thirds of FPSS patients agreed that the preparation tasted similar to a sports drink.

CONCLUSION

The new sports drink-like flavored preparation compares favorably to PEG-SD for bowel cleansing efficacy while achieving similar patient satisfaction. The study was registered at www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (NCT03328507) on 01/11/2017.

Comparison of MiraLAX and magnesium citrate for bowel preparation at CT colonography

PURPOSE

To compare MiraLAX, a hypo-osmotic lavage, and magnesium citrate (MgC), a hyper-osmotic agent for bowel preparation at CTC.

METHODS

398 total screening CTC studies were included in this retrospective, single institution study. 297 underwent preparation with a double-dose MgC regimen (mean age, 61 ± 5.5 years; 142 male/155 female) and 101 with 8.3 oz (equivalent to 238 g PEG) of MiraLAX (mean age, 60 ± 9.6 years; 45 male/56 female). Oral contrast for tagging purposes was utilized in both regimens. Studies were retrospectively analyzed for residual fluid volume and attenuation by automated analysis, as well for subjective oral contrast coating of the normal colonic wall and polyps. 50 patients underwent successive CTC studies utilizing each agent (mean, 6.1 ± 1.7 years apart), allowing for intra-patient comparison. Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, McNemar, and t-tests were used for data comparison.

RESULTS

Residual fluid volume (as percentage of total colonic volume) and fluid density was 7.2 ± 4.2% and 713 ± 183 HU for the MgC cohort and 8.7 ± 3.8% and 1044 HU ± 274 for the MiraLAX cohort, respectively (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Similar results were observed for the intra-patient cohort. Colonic wall coating negatively influencing interpretation was noted in 1.7% of MgC vs. 6.9% of MiraLAX examinations (p = 0.008). Polyps were detected in 12% of all MgC vs. 16% of all MiraLAX CTCs (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

CTC bowel preparation with the hypo-osmotic MiraLAX agent appears to provide acceptable diagnostic quality that is comparable to the hyper-osmotic MgC agent, especially when factoring in patient safety and tolerance.

Comparison of a Novel, Flavor-optimized, Polyethylene Glycol and Sulfate Bowel Preparation With Oral Sulfate Solution in Adults Undergoing Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION

A new bowel preparation for colonoscopy has been developed containing poorly absorbed sulfate salts and polyethylene glycol 3350, which retain water within the intestinal lumen resulting in copious diarrhea, thereby cleansing the bowel. The product was formulated to be safe and effective with a sports drink-like flavor. This study evaluated the new flavored polyethylene glycol and sulfate solution (FPSS) compared with a Food and Drug Administration-approved bowel preparation containing sulfate salts only [oral sulfate solution (OSS)].

METHODS

Five hundred adults were enrolled in this multicenter, noninferiority study. Subjects were assigned FPSS or OSS administered in split-dose regimens (PM/AM). FPSS subjects took 2 L of the flavored osmotic solution (1 L at night and 1 L in the morning). OSS was taken according to its approved labeling. Colonoscopies were graded globally and segmentally by blinded local investigators using a 4-point scale (excellent, good, fair, and poor), with "good" and "excellent" considered successful. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs) and laboratory testing.

RESULTS

A high rate of cleansing success was seen with FPSS (94%), which was noninferior to OSS (94%). This conclusion was confirmed by blinded central readers. Segmental success rates were >90% for both preparations, including the right colon. Questionnaire ratings indicated the FPSS experience was preferred over OSS with 87% of FPSS subjects noting their preparation was "tolerable" to "very easy" to consume versus 74% for OSS. The majority of FPSS subjects agreed their preparation tasted like a sports drink. Gastrointestinal symptoms were the most common AEs. There was no difference between preparations for any AE and no clinically significant differences in laboratory parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

The new sports drink-like flavored preparation achieved a high level of cleansing in the study, demonstrating noninferiority to OSS. FPSS was well-tolerated with low rates of expected gastrointestinal symptoms. The optimized flavor of FPSS resulted in significantly better acceptance ratings.

Hyponatremic encephalopathy due to polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation is critical for colonoscopy screening. At present, the most widely used intestinal cleaner recommended at home and abroad is Polyethylene glycol (PEG). Intestinal cleansers can cause electrolyte disturbances and hyponatremia. However, hyponatremic encephalopathy due to hyponatremia induced by PEG solution, although rare, can lead to serious irreversible sequelae and even death.

CASE SUMMARY

In this report, we discuss a case of neurological dysfunction due to hyponatremia, also known as hyponatremic encephalopathy, observed in a 63-year-old woman who underwent PEG-based bowel preparation for colonoscopy. She was eventually transferred to our intensive care unit for treatment due to her Glasgow Coma Scale score of 9/15 (Eye opening 2; Verbal response 1; Motor response 6) and abnormal laboratory tests.

CONCLUSION

Physicians should be thoroughly familiarized with the patient's history before prescribing PEG for bowel preparation, and timely identification of patients with hyponatremic encephalopathy is essential as delayed treatment is associated with poor neurological outcomes. An intravenous infusion of 3% sodium chloride is recommended at the onset of early symptoms. The goal of treatment is to adequately treat cerebral edema while avoiding serum sodium correction beyond 15 to 20 mEq/L within 48 h of treatment to prevent osmotic demyelination syndrome.

The Efficacy of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Split-dose bowel preparation leads to superior colon cleansing for colonoscopy. However, the magnitude of benefit in detecting colonic polyps is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the data on whether using a split-dose bowel preparation regimen improves the detection of polyps when compared with other dosing methods or regimen products.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (from the inception to June 2017) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the following: split-dose vs day-before, split-dose vs same-day (as colonoscopy), or different types of split-dose regimens for patients undergoing colonoscopy. We excluded studies limited to inpatients, children, or individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy with recorded detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), right colonic adenomas, right colonic polyps, or right colonic SSPs.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (8,842 participants). Of the seven trials comparing split-dose vs day-before bowel preparation regimens, there was an increased detection rate of adenomas (risk ratio (RR) 1.26, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.10-1.44; 4 trials; 1,258 participants), advanced adenomas (RR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22-1.92; 3 trials; 1,155 participants), and SSPs (RR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.21-5.09; 2 trials; 1,045 participants). Pooled estimates from 8 trials (1,587 participants) evaluating split-dose vs same-day bowel preparations yielded no evidence of statistical difference. For various split-dose vs split-dose trials, 14 fulfilled the criteria (5,496 participants) and no superior split-regimen was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with day-before bowel preparation regimens, split-dose bowel preparations regimens increase the detection of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and have the greatest benefit in SSP detection.

Comparing the Real-World Effectiveness of Competing Colonoscopy Preparations: Results of a Prospective Trial

OBJECTIVES

National societies provide little guidance regarding which colonoscopy bowel preps are best tolerated and most effective; this reflects a lack of comparative effectiveness studies that directly evaluate the available preps in a "real-world" setting. To address this gap, we conducted a prospective, commercially unfunded comparative effectiveness study of currently available bowel preps and measured their impact on bowel cleansing.

METHODS

We included patients aged ≥18 years, who presented for an outpatient colonoscopy at a large medical center serving more than 70 academic and community-based endoscopists who are free to prescribe the bowel prep of their choice. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. We performed regression models with random effects on the outcomes to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS

Approximately 4,339 colonoscopies were performed by 75 endoscopists. Magnesium citrate, MiraLAX with Gatorade, MoviPrep, OsmoPrep, Prepopik/Clenpiq, and Suprep all had significantly higher prep tolerability compared with GoLYTELY (all P < 0.05). For bowel cleansing, Suprep (7.28 ± 1.66; P < 0.001), MoviPrep (7.11 ± 1.62; P = 0.004), and MiraLAX with Gatorade (7.09 ± 1.64; P < 0.001) had higher total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores compared with GoLYTELY (6.67 ± 1.87); there were no significant differences among the remaining preps. Split-prep dosing was associated with better cleansing; however, men, opioid and tricyclic antidepressent users, and patients with diabetes and cirrhosis had worse cleansing (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective, real-world comparative effectiveness study of available bowel preps, we found that MiraLAX with Gatorade, MoviPrep, and Suprep were prospectively associated with superior tolerability and bowel cleansing.

Research progress on patient comfort during bowel preparation

Bowel preparation is one of the key and necessary steps for preoperative preparations of multiple operations such as electronic colonoscopy, capsule endoscopy, barium X-ray, colorectal surgery, gynecology surgery, and urology surgery. Although better methods for bowel preparation have been explored continuously, patient intolerance still exists during the current bowel preparation process. Adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting often occur, leading to poor comfort experience and affecting the patient's compliance and bowel preparation results. This article reviews the factors influencing patient comfort during bowel preparation and the corresponding interventions.

Patient Characteristics Associated With Quality of Colonoscopy Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Some features of patients are associated with inadequate bowel preparation, which reduces the effectiveness of colonoscopy examination. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between patients' sociodemographic characteristics, health conditions, and medications with inadequate bowel preparation.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Review databases for randomized controlled trials cohort (prospective and retrospective), case-control, and cross-sectional studies published through March 2016. We collected information on study design, study population, and bowel preparation. For each factor, we obtained the odds ratio (OR) for inadequate bowel preparation. We conducted the meta-analyses using the random-effects approach and investigated any identified heterogeneity and publication bias via graphical methods, stratification, and meta-regression.

RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of 67 studies, comprising 75,818 patients. The estimated pooled OR for inadequate bowel preparation was small for sociodemographic characteristics: 1.14 for age, and 1.23 for male sex (excluding studies in Asia, which had substantial heterogeneity and publication bias), and 1.49 for low education. The effect of high body mass index differed significantly in studies with mostly female patients (OR, 1.05) vs those with mostly male patients (OR, 1.30) (P = .013 for the difference). ORs for constipation and cirrhosis were heterogeneous; adjusted ORs were larger than unadjusted ORs (1.97 vs 1.29 for constipation and 3.41 vs 1.36 for cirrhosis). Diabetes (OR, 1.79), hypertension (OR, 1.25), stroke or dementia (OR, 2.09), and opioid use (OR, 1.70) were associated with inadequate bowel preparation. History of abdominal surgery (OR, 0.99) did not associate with inadequate bowel preparation. Use of tricyclic antidepressants had a larger effect on risk of inadequate bowel preparation in studies of mostly female patients (OR, 2.62) than studies of mostly male patients (OR, 1.42) (P = .085 for the difference).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found no single patient-related factor to be solely associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Health conditions and use of some medications appear to be stronger predictors than sociodemographic characteristics.

Clinical Trial of 1000 Subjects Randomized to 5 Low-Volume Bowel Preparations for Colonoscopy and Their Acceptance of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations

BACKGROUND

We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of 5 low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

STUDY

We performed an investigator-blinded, randomized trial of 5 bowel preparations: 64 ounces of Gatorade and 306 or 357 g of PEG, both given the day prior; Gatorade and 306 g PEG, 2 L PEG-electrolyte solution with ascorbic acid, and sulfate solution, all 3 given as a split dose. One thousand outpatients consumed their preparation before a morning colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was colon cleanliness assessed by the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale (BPS). Tolerability was assessed using a subject questionnaire. Another primary endpoint was patient acceptance of a split-dose bowel preparation assessed using a subject questionnaire.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in the modified Chicago BPS were found among Gatorade and 357 g of PEG given as a day-prior dose and the 3 split-dose arms with 98.5% of colons cleansed adequately. The Gatorade and 357 g of PEG had significantly lower Chicago BPS fluid scores and Chicago BPS total scores (indicating dryer colons that required more irrigation) than the 3 split-dose arms. The Gatorade and PEG preparations were better tolerated. Many subjects are unwilling to consume a split-dose preparation and the majority of subjects would prefer a day-prior preparation with this preference highly dependent on the type of preparation they just consumed.

CONCLUSIONS

The cleanliness of the colons was not significantly different among the 3 split-dose preparations. Day-prior dosing of Gatorade and 357 g of PEG allowed the mucosa to be visualized as well as did the split-dose preparations.

Safety of a 1-Day Polyethylene Glycol 3350 Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in Children

OBJECTIVES

Electrolyte-free polyethylene glycol powder (PEG-3350) has been widely used for colonoscopy preparation (prep); however, limited safety data on electrolyte changes exists with 1-day prep regimens. The primary aim of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with significant serum chemistry abnormalities before and at the time of colonoscopy. Secondary aims included evaluation of prep tolerance and bowel cleansing efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a prospective descriptive observational study of pediatric patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy who received our standard 1-day, weight-based 4 g/kg PEG-3350 prep with a single stimulant laxative dose and had serum chemistry testing within 60 days before and at the time of colonoscopy. A standardized bowel cleanliness tool (Aronchick scale) was completed by the endoscopist.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five patients had serum electrolytes data pre- and postprep. Comparison of each patient's chemistries demonstrated statistical equivalence with the 1 exception of blood urea nitrogen levels (P = 0.56). Hypokalemia was detected postprep in 37 subjects (24%), but none had a serum level <3.3 mmol/L, which was deemed to be of no clinical significance. Five patients were hypoglycemic post prep; 3 were 7 years or younger (P = 0.02). The colon cleanliness rating was excellent or good in 77% and suboptimal in 23% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A 1-day, weight-based PEG-3350 bowel prep in children appears safe. Changes in electrolyte levels and renal function were not clinically significant. Children of 7 years or younger seem to be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia compared with older children.

Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualization

Colonoscopy is an important screening and therapeutic modality for colorectal cancer. Unlike other screening tests, colonoscopy is dependent on pre-procedure bowel preparation. If the bowel preparation is poor, significant pathology may be missed. Many factors are known to improve bowel preparation. This review will highlight those factors that may optimize the bowel preparation, including choice of bowel preparation, grading or scoring of the bowel preparation, special factors that influence preparation, and diet prior to colonoscopy that affects bowel preparation. The aim of the review is to offer suggestions and guide endoscopists on how to optimize the bowel preparation for the patients undergoing colonoscopy.

The relevance of hyponatraemia to perioperative care of surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Hyponatraemia is the most common electrolyte disturbance in hospitalized patients. There is an increasing awareness of the impact of hyponatraemia on the perioperative management of surgical patients.

METHODS

We performed a literature review. We have included relevant data from different surgical disciplines for analysis. In this review we discuss the differential diagnosis of hyponatraemia, and explain the specific relevance of hyponatraemia to pre-, peri- and post-operative care.

RESULTS

Hyponatraemia is common during the preoperative period and is associated with an increase in subsequent peri-operative complications, such as wound infection, pneumonia, higher mortality rate and higher direct and indirect costs. Furthermore, data shows poorer surgical outcomes when plasma sodium concentration drops. Careful preoperative evaluation of the hyponatraemic patient enables assessment of surgical risk and individualization of the management of hyponatraemia.

CONCLUSIONS

We outline a practical guide to the assessment of the cause of hyponatraemia, which dictates the correct management of hyponatraemia and the correct selection of perioperative fluids. Finally, for the therapeutic role of the new vasopressin antagonist drugs in the treatment of surgical hyponatraemia is discussed in two illustrative surgical clinical cases.