Efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral sulphate tablet for bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A multicentre randomized controlled study

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on colorectal surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remain at increased risk for colorectal cancer and death from colorectal cancer compared with the general population despite improvements in inflammation control with advanced therapies, colonoscopic surveillance and reductions in environmental risk factors. This guideline update from 2010 for colorectal surveillance of patients over 16 years with colonic inflammatory bowel disease was developed by stakeholders representing UK physicians, endoscopists, surgeons, specialist nurses and patients with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodological support.An a priori protocol was published describing the approach to three levels of statement: GRADE recommendations, good practice statements or expert opinion statements. A systematic review of 7599 publications, with appraisal and GRADE analysis of trials and network meta-analysis, where appropriate, was performed. Risk thresholding guided GRADE judgements.We made 73 statements for the delivery of an IBD colorectal surveillance service, including outcome standards for service and endoscopist audit, and the importance of shared decision-making with patients.Core areas include: risk of colorectal cancer, IBD-related post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer; service organisation and supporting patient concordance; starting and stopping surveillance, who should or should not receive surveillance; risk stratification, including web-based multivariate risk calculation of surveillance intervals; colonoscopic modalities, bowel preparation, biomarkers and artificial intelligence aided detection; chemoprevention; the role of non-conventional dysplasia, serrated lesions and non-targeted biopsies; management of dysplasia, both endoscopic and surgical, and the structure and role of the multidisciplinary team in IBD dysplasia management; training in IBD colonoscopic surveillance, sustainability (green endoscopy), cost-effectiveness and patient experience. Sixteen research priorities are suggested.

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Colonoscopy is the gold standard for early detection and monitoring of colorectal cancer. Procedural effectiveness is dependent on optimal bowel preparation. Traditional polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are difficult to tolerate, whereas newer low-volume alternatives, including PEG with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solutions (OSS), offer improved efficacy and tolerability. The meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OSS compared to PEG for bowel preparation in colonoscopy.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials comparing OSS with PEG were included. Data was analyzed using R version 4.4.0 using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Twenty-one studies with 6346 participants met the inclusion criteria. OSS significantly improved adenoma detection (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%) and polyp detection rates (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26; p-value <0.01; I2 = 0%), and had a higher Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score (MD, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.13-0.50; p-value <0.01; I2 = 81%). PEG was associated with more sleep disturbances (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.25-0.82; p-value = 0.03; I2 = 0%). However, other adverse effects were similar between both solutions.

Conclusion

OSS demonstrated superior adenoma and polyp detection rates. When compared to PEG, patients utilizing OSS achieved higher BBPS scores. Data gleaned support enhanced cleansing efficacy and safety of OSS as a bowel preparation regimen.

Optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy

There is robust evidence to indicate a strong correlation between the bowel preparation status and adenoma detection rate (ADR), which directly impacts the incidence and mortality rate of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Therefore, improving bowel preparation has been of increasing interest. In Japan, commercially available bowel preparation agents include polyethylene glycol, oral sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate, magnesium citrate, and oral sodium phosphate; each has its own strengths and limitations. The timing of administration can also influence the efficacy of bowel preparation and patient tolerability. Furthermore, meta-analyses have suggested predictive factors for inadequate bowel preparation. A detailed understanding of these factors could contribute to reducing the need for repeat colonoscopy within 1 year, as recommended for patients with inadequate bowel preparation. Recent advancements, such as oral sulfate tablets, present promising alternatives with higher patient satisfaction and ADRs than traditional methods. Achieving optimal bowel preparation requires enhanced instructions, individualized regimens, and a comprehensive understanding of patient backgrounds and the characteristics of various bowel preparation agents. This article provides a concise overview of the current status and advancements in bowel preparation for enhancing the quality and safety of colonoscopy.

Deep Learning Model Using Stool Pictures for Predicting Endoscopic Mucosal Inflammation in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis

INTRODUCTION

Stool characteristics may change depending on the endoscopic activity of ulcerative colitis (UC). We developed a deep learning model using stool photographs of patients with UC (DLSUC) to predict endoscopic mucosal inflammation.

METHODS

This was a prospective multicenter study conducted in 6 tertiary referral hospitals. Patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy for mucosal inflammation monitoring were asked to take photographs of their stool using smartphones within 1 week before the day of endoscopy. DLSUC was developed using 2,161 stool pictures from 306 patients and tested on 1,047 stool images from 126 patients. The UC endoscopic index of severity was used to define endoscopic activity. The performance of DLSUC in endoscopic activity prediction was compared with that of fecal calprotectin (Fcal).

RESULTS

The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of DLSUC for predicting endoscopic activity was 0.801 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.717-0.873), which was not statistically different from the AUC of Fcal (0.837 [95% CI, 0.767-0.899, DeLong P = 0.458]). When rectal-sparing cases (23/126, 18.2%) were excluded, the AUC of DLSUC increased to 0.849 (95% CI, 0.760-0.919). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of DLSUC in predicting endoscopic activity were 0.746, 0.662, and 0.877 in all patients and 0.845, 0.745, and 0.958 in patients without rectal sparing, respectively. Active patients classified by DLSUC were more likely to experience disease relapse during a median 8-month follow-up (log-rank test, P = 0.002).

DISCUSSION

DLSUC demonstrated a good discriminating power similar to that of Fcal in predicting endoscopic activity with improved accuracy in patients without rectal sparing. This study implies that stool photographs are a useful monitoring tool for typical UC.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulfate tablet versus 2 L-polyethylene glycol/ascorbate for bowel preparation in older patients: prospective, multicenter, investigator single-blinded, randomized study

BACKGROUND

We compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of oral sulfate tablets (OST, which contains simethicone) and 2 L-polyethylene glycol/ascorbate (2 L-PEG/Asc) with a split-dosing regimen in older individuals aged ≥ 70 years who underwent scheduled colonoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter study was conducted between June 2022 and October 2023. Participants aged ≥ 70 years were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to the OST or 2 L-PEG/Asc groups.

RESULTS

In total, 254 patients were evaluated using a modified full analysis set. Successful overall bowel preparation was excellent and similar between the OST and 2 L-PEG/Asc groups for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) (96.5% vs. 96.6%) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) (96.5% vs. 97.4%). The overall high-quality preparation rate was higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/Asc group (BBPS: 55.7% vs. 28.4%, P < 0.001; HCS: 66.1% vs. 38.8%, P < 0.001). The overall adenoma detection rate (54.8% vs. 35.3, P = 0.003) was superior in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/Asc group. Tolerability scores, including overall satisfaction, were generally higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/Asc group. The incidence of major solicited adverse events was comparable between the two groups (55.7% vs. 68.1, P = 0.051), and there were no clinically significant changes in the serum laboratory profiles on the day of or 7 days after colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

OST is an effective and safe low-volume agent for colonoscopy, with better tolerance than 2 L-PEG/Asc, in older individuals aged ≥ 70 years.

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate tablet vs. polyethylene glycol and ascorbate for bowel preparation in children

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bowel preparation for pediatric colonoscopy presents several challenges. However, no bowel preparation regimen is universally preferred for children. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral sulfate tablet (OST) in pediatric bowel preparation.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed data from children who received 2l of polyethylene glycol and ascorbate (PEG/Asc) or OST for bowel preparation between 2021 and 2023. A comparative analysis was conducted between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients were included (2l PEG/Asc: 115, 73.0% vs. OST: 31). No significant difference was observed in the total BBPS score (median 8.0 vs. 8.0, P = 0.152) and the total OBPS score (median 5.0 vs. 3.0, P = 0.152) between the two groups. No significant difference was noted in the ratio of a bubble score of 0 (73.0% vs. 93.5%, P = 0.132). The incidence of abdominal pain was significantly lower in the OST group (32.2% vs. 3.2%, P = 0.002). The VAS score for overall satisfaction was significantly higher in the OST group (4.0 vs. 7.0, P < 0.001). For the next colonoscopy bowel preparation, a higher proportion of patients in the OST group showed a willingness to use the same preparation regimen (33.9% vs. 83.9%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

OST was as efficacious and safe as 2 L of PEG/Asc for pediatric bowel preparation. The satisfaction level was higher with OST than with 2 L of PEG/Asc. OST may be considered a good alternative for children with poor compliance during bowel preparation.

Emerging space for non-polyethene-glycol bowel preparations in inflammatory bowel disease-related colonoscopy: Veering toward better adherence and palatability

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) require repeated endoscopic evaluations over time by colonoscopy to weigh disease activity but also for different and additional indications (e.g., evaluation of postoperative recurrence, colorectal cancer surveillance). Colonoscopy, however, requires adequate bowel preparation to be of quality. The latter is achieved as long as the patient takes a certain amount of product to have a number of bowel movements suitable to clean the colon and allow optimal visualization of the mucosa during endoscopy. However, significant guidelines recommend preparations for patients with IBD not excelling in palatability. This recommendation originates from the fact that most of the studies conducted on bowel preparations in patients with IBD have been done with isosmolar preparations based on polyethylene glycol (PEG), for which, therefore, more safety data exist. As a result, the low-volume non-PEG preparations (e.g., magnesium citrate plus picosulphate, oral sulphate solutions) have been set aside for the whole range of warnings to be heeded because of their hyperosmolarity. New studies, however, are emerging, leaning in overall for a paradigm shift in this matter. Indeed, such non-PEG preparations seem to show a particularly encouraging and engaging safety profile when considering their broad potential for tolerability and patient preference. Indeed, such evidence is insufficient to indicate such preparations in all patients with IBD but may pave the way for those with remission or well-controlled disease. This article summarizes the central studies conducted in IBD settings using non-PEG preparations by discussing their results.

Quality of bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing colonoscopy: What factors to consider?

An adequate bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a prerequisite for successful colonoscopy for screening, diagnosis, and surveillance. Several bowel preparation formulations are available, both high- and low-volume based on polyethylene glycol. Generally, low-volume formulations are also based on several compounds such as magnesium citrate preparations with sodium picosulphate, oral sulphate solution, and oral sodium phosphate-based solutions. Targeted studies on the quality of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in the IBD population are still required, with current evidence from existing studies being inconclusive. New frontiers are also moving towards the use of alternatives to anterograde ones, using preparations based on retrograde colonic lavage.