Randomized trial comparing oral sulfate solution with 4-L polyethylene glycol administered in a split dose as preparation for colonoscopy

Efficacy and safety of oral sodium sulfate tablet compared with 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate: a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low-volume bowel preparation solutions, including 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-A), have been developed to improve tolerability. The oral sodium sulfate tablet (OST) is a new agent with simethicone as a preloaded component. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of OST compared to 1-L PEG-A.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, controlled study was performed with randomization into the OST (group A) and 1-L PEG-A (group B) groups. Bowel preparation efficacy was assessed on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Bubble Scale. Safety and tolerability were evaluated using a questionnaire and laboratory examination.

RESULTS

Final analysis was performed on 171 patients (group A: 87, group B: 84). The proportion of bowel preparation success (BBPS ≥ 2 for each colonic segment) in group A was not inferior compared to group B (95.4% vs 96.4%, P = 0.736, 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit -7.0%). The adenoma detection rate was not different (59.6% vs 41.9%; P = 0.087). The bubble scale was better in group A (0.2 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.7, P < 0.001). All adverse events were mild in both groups. Nausea was less frequent in group A (14.9% vs 38.1%, P = 0.001). Overall satisfaction was better in group A (8.1 ± 2.1 vs 6.4 ± 2.8, P < 0.001). No clinically significant laboratory abnormality developed in both groups. These findings were similarly shown in old patients ≥65 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OST and 1-L PEG-A were efficacious, safe, and tolerable for bowel preparation of colonoscopy. The OST showed fewer bubbles and slightly better tolerability.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of an oral sulfate solution and 3-L polyethylene glycol on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a phase III multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adequate bowel preparation is crucial for clear mucosal visualization during colonoscopy. We aimed to comprehensively compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) and 3-L split-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority study was performed in 10 medical centers. Eligible subjects were enrolled to receive OSS or 3-L PEG in a split-dose regimen. The quality of bowel preparation, adverse reactions, and acceptability were evaluated. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Safety was evaluated by adverse reactions. The study population was divided into the full analysis set (FAS), the safety set, the modified FAS (mFAS), and the per-protocol set (PPS).

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-eight potentially eligible subjects were enrolled. Three hundred forty-four subjects were included in the FAS and safety set, 340 subjects were included in the mFAS, and 328 subjects were included in the PPS. Adequate bowel preparation of the OSS was not inferior to 3-L PEG in the mFAS (98.22% vs 97.66%) and the PPS (98.17% vs 98.78%). There was no significant difference in acceptability between the 2 groups (94.74% vs 94.80%, P = .9798). Overall adverse reactions were similar (50.88% vs 44.51%, P = .2370) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The split-dose OSS regimen was not inferior to the split-dose 3-L PEG regimen for the quality of bowel preparation in a Chinese adult population. The safety and acceptability of the 2 groups were similar. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05465889.).

Efficacy and safety of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly: comparison with oral sulfate solution

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recently, 1 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (Asc) has been introduced in Korea as a colonoscopy preparation agent. Data on its efficacy and safety in older adults have been limited. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 L PEG/Asc in older adults by comparing it with oral sulfate solution (OSS).

METHODS

A prospective multicenter randomized study was conducted with subjects aged ≥ 65 years who underwent colonoscopy. The participants were randomized to receive 1 L PEG/Asc or OSS. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation, defined as total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥ 6, and ≥ 2 at each segment. Patient satisfaction, adverse events, and renal function changes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Among the 106 patients, 104 were finally included in the analysis. Overall, successful bowel preparation was achieved in 96.2% of both 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS groups. The satisfaction scores for taste, total amount ingested, overall feeling, and willingness to repeat the same regimen were not significantly different between the groups. Adverse events of moderate or higher severity occurred in 16 and 10 cases in the 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS group, respectively. There were no significant changes in electrolyte levels or renal function from baseline.

CONCLUSION

The successful bowel preparation rate was > 90% in both groups without severe adverse effects and significant changes in renal function. As a new low-dose preparation regimen for colonoscopy in older adults, 1 L PEG/Asc, is as effective and safe as OSS.

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens.

METHODS

We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance.

RESULTS

We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat.

CONCLUSION

PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

Efficacy of oral sulfate tablets for bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The adenoma detection rate (ADR), which is closely related to bowel preparation, is the most important factor for colonoscopy quality assessment. New oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) have been developed to improve bowel preparation compliance. This study evaluated the efficacy of OSTs in terms of the ADR and bowel preparation status.

METHODS

Medical records of subjects under the age of 65 who underwent colonoscopy from March 2019 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-A) was used as a bowel preparation for the first half of the study period, and OSTs were used for the second half. In total, 16 971 subjects were included in the study: 9199 (54.2%) used PEG-A, and 7772 (45.8%) used OSTs. Bowel cleansing quality was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS).

RESULTS

The average age was 50 years. The rate of adequate bowel preparation was higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (97.2% vs 95.0%, P < 0.001). The mean BBPS was also higher in the OST group (8.02 vs 7.75, P < 0.001). The adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the ADR and the sessile serrated polyp detection rate (SSPDR) were higher in the OST group than in the PEG-A group (APC 0.56 ± 1.01 vs 0.48 ± 0.91, P < 0.001; ADR 34.5% vs 30.7%, P < 0.001; SSPDR 5.2% vs 3.3%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with PEG-A, OSTs yielded superior APC, ADRs, SSPDRs, and better bowel cleanliness. Therefore, OSTs are a good alternative for patients who have difficulty taking large-volume bowel preparation formulations.

Low-dose of magnesium sulfate solution was not inferior to standard regime of polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Large polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a standard regimen for bowel preparation. However, elderly patients suffered from adverse events. This study was to compare the efficacy and safety of oral magnesium sulfate solution (MSS) vs standard PEG in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Elderly patients aged 60-90 years, from two endoscopic centers, were enrolled in China. Patients were randomized to take a low dose of MSS or a standard PEG regime in a split-dose regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with adequate bowel preparation, which was defined as the total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) ≥6 and each segmental BBPS was ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate (ADR), safety, adverse events, cecal intubation rate, willingness to repeat BP, and so on.

RESULTS

1174 elderly patients were randomly allocated to the MSS group (n = 588) or the standard group (n = 586). Adequate BP was achieved in 94.0% of patients in the MSS group and 92.5% in the control (p = .287). ADR was also comparable between the two groups (43.0% and 39.9%, p = .282). Compared with the standard group, MSS group reported less abdominal discomfort (1.7% vs 6.0%), less nausea (13.6% vs 21.0%) and vomiting (1.2% vs 4.2%). The change in serum potassium levels after preparation in the standard group was significantly lower than that in the MSS group (-0.19 ± 0.08 vs -0.41 ± 0.11, p = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose of MSS was not inferior to the standard PEG regime in terms of bowel preparation quality for elderly patients. Low-dose MSS offered fewer adverse events and better tolerability. It is a preferable choice for the elderly to undergo bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04948567.

Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Although oral sulfate solution (OSS) has been revealed to be not only safe and efficacious but also noninferior to polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG + ASC), it is unclear whether OSS can ultimately increase the polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). We performed this meta-analysis to estimate the effect of OSS on PDR and ADR during colonoscopy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the comparative effect of OSS versus PEG + ASC on the PDR and ADR during colonoscopy. Cecal intubation time (CIT), cecal intubation rate (CIR), and bowel preparation score were also evaluated. Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3.0 was used to perform statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 2059 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. Meta-analysis suggested that OSS significantly increased the PDR (47.34% vs. 40.14%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.24, P = 0.01) and ADR (44.60% vs. 38.14%, RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33, P = 0.01) during colonoscopy. Subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effects of OSS on PDR and ADR were consistent among patients with mean age >55 years and with body mass index <25 kg/m² receiving outpatient colonoscopy, morning colonoscopy, and the 2-L bowel preparation protocol. Meanwhile, patients receiving OSS had a beneficial bowel preparation score.

CONCLUSION

Compared with polyethylene glycol-based regimens, the OSS bowel preparation regimen significantly increased the PDR and ADR in patients undergoing colonoscopy.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study

BACKGROUND

Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking.

AIM

To compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.

RESULTS

Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% vs 38.2%, P = 0.005). High-definition scopes were used in 33.4% of patients, without difference in the two groups (P = 0.605). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs 86.6%, P = 0.098), also considering the two different schedules (HV split-dose 93.8% vs LV split-dose 93.6%, P = 1; HV day-before 85.5% vs LV day-before 82.3%, P = 0.182). Mean global BBPS score was higher for HV preparations (7.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.8 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). After adjustment for sex, age and indications for colonoscopy, HV preparation resulted higher in PDR [Odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95%CI: 1.07-1.63, P = 0.011] and ADR (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.02–1.63, P = 0.038) and comparable to LV in AADR (OR 1.51, 95%CI 0.97-2.35, P = 0.069), SDR and cancer detection rate. The use of standard-definition colonoscopes was associated to lower PDR (adjusted OR 1.59, 95%CI: 1.22-2.08, P < 0.001), ADR (adjusted OR 1.71, 95%CI: 1.26–2.30, P < 0.001) and AADR (adjusted OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.09-3.56, P = 0.025) in patients receiving LV preparation. Mean Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7, P = 0.627) but a ≥ 75% dose intake was more frequent with LV (94.6% vs 92.1%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

In a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.

Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is characterized by rapid declines in the wake of widespread screening. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening, but its accuracy is related to high quality of bowel preparation (BP). In this review, we aimed to summarized the current strategy to increase bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Newly bowel cleansing agents were developed with the same efficacy of previous agent but requiring less amount of liquid to improve patients’ acceptability. The role of the diet before colonoscopy was also changed, as well the contribution of educational intervention and the use of adjunctive drugs to improve patients’ tolerance and/or quality of BP. The review also described BP in special situations, as lower gastrointestinal bleeding, elderly people, patients with chronic kidney disease, patients with inflammatory bowel disease, patients with congestive heart failure, inpatient, patient with previous bowel resection, pregnant/lactating patients. The review underlined the quality of BP should be described using a validate scale in colonoscopy report and it explored the available scales. Finally, the review explored the possible contribution of bowel cleansing in post-colonoscopy syndrome that can be related by a transient alteration of gut microbiota. Moreover, the study underlined several points needed to further investigations.

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose.

METHODS

In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I² statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.

RESULTS

In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I² = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.

Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy in 2020: A Look at the Past, Present, and Future

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the USA. Colonoscopy is considered the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and can offer both diagnosis and therapy. The bowel preparation remains a significant barrier for patients who need to undergo colonoscopy and is often cited as the most dreaded aspect of the colonoscopy process. Inadequate bowel preparations still occur in 10-25% of colonoscopies, and this in turn can lead to increased procedural times, lower cecal intubation rates, and shorter interval between colonoscopies. From a quality standpoint, it is imperative that we do what we can to decrease the rate of inadequate bowel preparations. This review will focus on recent data regarding bowel preparation and offers a glimpse into what may be coming in the future.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent advances in the field have been made to improve tolerability of bowel preparations and allow for more adequate colonoscopies. Newer, lower volume, flavored preparations, the use of adjuncts, and using split-dose preparations all can help with tolerability, compliance, and, in turn, preparation quality. Edible bowel preparations may become available in the near future. Early data on the use of artificial intelligence for assessment of preparation quality has been promising. Additionally, utilization of smartphone technology for education prior to the bowel preparation has also been shown to improve the adequacy of bowel preparations.

CONCLUSIONS

Ongoing efforts to improve the tolerability and palatability of colonoscopy bowel preparations are important from a quality improvement standpoint to ensure the adequacy of colonoscopy. Incorporating patient-specific factors and comorbidities is also an essential aspect of improving the quality of bowel preparation. Leveraging technology to better communicate with and educate patients on the bowel preparation process is likely to play a larger role in the coming years.

The importance of colonoscopy bowel preparation for the detection of colorectal lesions and colorectal cancer prevention

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has reduced CRC incidence and mortality and improved prognosis. Optimal bowel preparation and high-quality endoscopic technique facilitate early CRC detection. This review provides a narrative on the clinical importance of bowel preparation for colonoscopy and highlights available bowel preparations. Methods  A PubMed search was conducted through June 2019 to identify studies evaluating clinical outcomes, efficacy, safety, and tolerability associated with bowel preparation for CRC screening-related colonoscopy. Results  Selecting the optimal bowel preparation regimen is based on considerations of efficacy, safety, and tolerability, in conjunction with individual patient characteristics and preferences. Available bowel preparations include high-volume (4 L) and low-volume (2 L and 1 L), polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions, sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide plus anhydrous citric acid, sodium phosphate tablets, and the over-the-counter preparations magnesium citrate and PEG-3350. These preparations may be administered as a single dose on the same day or evening before, or as two doses administered the same day or evening before/morning of colonoscopy. Ingesting at least half the bowel preparation on the day of colonoscopy (split-dosing) is associated with higher adequate bowel preparation quality versus evening-before dosing (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.9-3.4). Conclusions  High-quality bowel preparation is integral for optimal CRC screening/surveillance by colonoscopy. Over the last 30 years, patients and providers have gained more options for bowel preparation, including low-volume agents with enhanced tolerability and cleansing quality that are equivalent to 4 L preparations. Split-dosing is preferred for achieving a high-quality preparation.

[Optimal Laxatives for Oral Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: from High-volume to Novel Low-volume Solutions]

Optimal bowel preparation is essential for a more accurate, comfortable, and safe colonoscopy. The majority of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers can be explained by procedural factors, mainly missed polyps or inadequate examination. Therefore the most important goal of optimal bowel preparation is to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. Although adequate preparation should be achieved in 85-90% or more of all colonoscopy as a quality indicator, unfortunately 20-30% shows inadequate preparation. Laxatives for oral colonoscopy bowel preparation can be classified into polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte lavage solution, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives, and divided into high-volume solution (≥3 L) and low-volume solution (<3 L). The updated 2019 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline is broadly similar to the 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and reaffirms the importance of split-dosing. However, new ESGE guideline, unlike the 2014 ASGE recommendation, suggests the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG based agents that have been clinically validated for most outpatient scenarios. For effective, safe, and highly adherent bowel preparation, physicians who prescribe and implement colonoscopy should properly know the advantages and limitations, the dosing, and the timing of regimens. Recently many studies have attempted to find the most ideal regimens, and more convenient, effective, and safe regimens have been developed by reducing the dosing volume and improving the taste. The high tolerability and acceptability of the new low-volume regimens suggest us how we should use it to increase the participation of the national colorectal cancer screening program.

Novel sulfate tablet PBK-1701TC versus oral sulfate solution for colon cleansing: A randomized phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

PBK-1701TC is a novel sulfate tablet-based that contains 320 mg of simethicone and delivers 90% of the salt and water delivered by oral sulfate solution (OSS) preparation. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of PBK-1701TC compared with OSS in bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

METHODS

This randomized, multicenter, phase 3 non-inferiority trial included adults aged 19 years or older with a body mass index of 19-30 kg/m² undergoing colonoscopy at five university hospitals in Korea. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful bowel-cleansing rate, defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale grade A or B as evaluated by blinded central readers. Secondary endpoints included the presence of residual air bubbles. Adverse events and laboratory evaluations were monitored to assess safety. Tolerability was assessed via participant interview.

RESULTS

Overall, 235 participants were randomized, and 224 were included in the per-protocol analysis (PBK, 112; OSS, 112). Successful bowel cleansing was achieved for 95.5% (107/112) in the PBK group, which was non-inferior to the OSS group (98.2%, 110/112) with a difference of -2.7% (one sided 97.5% confidence limit, -8.1%). The participants in the PBK group had fewer intraluminal bubbles (0.9% vs 81.3%, P < 0.001) and reported a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting, with better acceptance, taste, and willingness to repeat the regimen than those in the OSS group (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The novel sulfate tablet, PBK-1701TC, was non-inferior to OSS with respect to bowel-cleansing efficacy and exhibited better safety and tolerability in adults undergoing colonoscopy.

Comparison Between an Oral Sulfate Solution and a 2 L of Polyethylene Glycol/Ascorbic Acid as a Split Dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an oral sulfate solution (OSS) versus 2 L of polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (2L-PEG/Asc) for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized, controlled trial was performed. The primary outcome was the rate of successful bowel cleansing, evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes were examination time, polyp, and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR), tolerability, and safety. Ease of use, palatability, intention to reuse, and satisfaction were evaluated using a questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 187 participants were randomized to receive either OSS (n=93) or 2L-PEG/Asc (n=94). Successful bowel cleansing was achieved in 86.0% (80/93) of the OSS group, which was noninferior to the 2L-PEG/Asc group (88.3%, 83/94), with a difference of -2.3% by ITT analysis [95% confidence interval (CI) -12.0 to +7.4]. The withdrawal time of the OSS group was significantly shorter than that of the 2L-PEG/Asc group (11.8±5.2 vs. 14.3±8.5; P=0.016). Ease of use, palatability, intention to reuse, and satisfaction were similar between the 2 groups. Adverse events were also similar between the 2 groups. Mucosal erythema (4.3%) and aphthous lesions (2.1%) were found only in the 2L-PEG/Asc group.

CONCLUSIONS

OSS was as effective as 2L-PEG/Asc for successful bowel cleansing and had acceptable tolerability. OSS is a promising and safe low-volume preparation alternative for colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02761213.).

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Colonoscopic Enema With Additional Oral Preparation as a Salvage for Inadequate Bowel Cleansing Before Colonoscopy

GOALS

The goal of this study was to evaluate the noninferiority of colonoscopic enema to additional oral preparation in salvage bowel cleansing for inadequate preparation for a morning colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic enema, administering additional cathartics into the right colon through the colonoscope accessory channel, is suggested to rescue poor bowel preparation for a colonoscopy but lacking comparative study.

STUDY

In this prospective, randomized, actively-controlled, parallel group, noninferiority trial, consecutive outpatients and health checkup recipients aged from 19 to 70 years with inappropriate bowel preparation during an elective colonoscopy were enrolled to receive either a colonoscopic enema of 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) (enema group) or additional oral intake of 2 L PEG (oral group). The primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel preparation evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 131 participants were randomized. Adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 53% (35/66) of the enema group, which was significantly inferior to the oral group (81.5%; 53/67) with a difference of -28.5% (95% confidence interval, -44.1, -12.9; P=0.001). The largest difference in the proportion of adequate bowel preparation was observed in the right colon (57.8% in the enema group vs. 86.9% in the oral group; P<0.001), followed by the transverse colon (85.9% vs. 98.4%; P=0.017) and the left colon (90.6% vs. 96.7%; P=0.274).

CONCLUSIONS

The colonoscopic enema of 1 L PEG was inferior to the additional oral ingestion of 2 L PEG regarding efficacy as a salvage bowel preparation in adults with inadequate bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

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.

Comparison of asymmetric (low morning-dose) and standard split-dose regimen of PEG plus bisacodyl for bowel preparation: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Reducing the morning dose of PEG solution may be a reliable strategy to improve the patient compliance of split-dose regimens without affecting efficacy of bowel cleansing.

AIMS

to compare the efficacy for bowel cleansing of an asymmetric split-dose regimen (25% of the dose on the day of colonoscopy and 75% on the day before) with the standard split-dose regimen.

METHODS

Outpatients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. All subjects received a split-dose preparation with a 2L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus Bisacodyl. Patients were randomly assigned to: group A, asymmetric split-dose regimen; group B, symmetric split-dose regimen. Primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing.

RESULTS

Split-dose was taken by 81 and 80 patients in group A and B. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 92.6% and 92.5% patients in group A and B (p = 1.000). No differences were observed regarding Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score, adenoma detection rate and scores of each colon segment.

CONCLUSIONS

The reduction of morning dose of PEG in a split-dose regimen is not inferior to the standard split-dose regimen in achieving an adequate bowel cleansing. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether asymmetric preparation is associated to a higher tolerability compared to symmetric split-dose regimen. (NCT03146052).

Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

NER1006 is the first 32 fluid ounce (1 L) polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation. This randomized, multicenter, colonoscopist/central reader-blinded phase 3 non-inferiority trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of NER1006 versus trisulfate for bowel cleansing.

METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to receive NER1006 or trisulfate, using evening/morning split-dosing administration. Blinded central readers used the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale to evaluate 2 alternative primary endpoints: overall bowel-cleansing success and high-quality cleansing of the ascending colon/cecum. Secondary endpoints included lesion detection, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) assessment, and adherence. The non-inferiority margin was 10% and the significance threshold was P < .025.

RESULTS

Of 621 patients randomized (NER1006, n=310; trisulfate, n=311), 556 were evaluated for efficacy (NER1006, n=276; trisulfate, n=280). NER1006 achieved non-inferiority versus trisulfate for both primary endpoints of overall bowel-cleansing success (85.1% vs 85.0%; difference, 0.14%; one-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit [LCL], -8.15%; P = .528) and high-quality cleansing of the ascending colon/cecum (35.9% versus 29.3%; difference, 6.58%; LCL, -1.69%; P = .059). BBPS assessments supported overall bowel-cleansing success rates. Lesion detection rates were similar between the groups. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events was 14.9% with NER1006 and 9.4% with trisulfate. Both bowel preparations showed similar overall tolerability and safety profiles. Adherence was very high in both arms.

CONCLUSIONS

With evening/morning split dosing, NER1006 was as effective as trisulfate for overall bowel and right-sided colon cleansing. Adverse event rates were slightly higher with NER1006 than trisulfate, but did not compromise tolerability, adherence, or efficacy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02254486.).