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

Efficacy of Oral Sulfate Tablet and 2 L-Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized KASID Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC).

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens.

RESULTS

The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups. The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0005017.

Acute Gastropathy Associated with Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy

Background/Aims

Utilization of low-volume preparation agents is crucial to improve patient willingness to undergo repeat colonoscopies. However, gastric safety data on preparation agents are limited. This study evaluated the acute gastropathy associated with bowel preparation agents.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled healthy subjects who underwent both esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy screening. Baseline patient characteristics, bowel preparation success, acute gastropathy, and polyp and adenoma detection rates were evaluated for 1 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (1 L PEG/Asc) and oral sulfate tablet (OST) groups.

Results

Comparison of the OST group (n=2,463) with the 1 L PEG/Asc group (n=2,060) revealed that the rates of successful cleansing and high-quality cleansing were similar between the two groups. Polyp and adenoma detection rates were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 1 L PEG/Asc group (p<0.001 and p=0.013), while the incidence of acute gastric mucosal lesion-like blood stain/clot, erosions at greater curvature side of antrum/body, multiple erosions, and overlying mucosal erythema or edema were all significantly higher in the OST group than in the 1 L PEG/Asc group (all p<0.001). Additionally, high and indeterminate probability scores of preparation agent-induced gastropathy (p=0.001) and mean Lanza scores were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 1 L PEG/Asc group (1.3 vs. 0.4, p<0.001).

Conclusions

Compared with 1 L PEG/Asc, OSTs were significantly associated with acute gastropathy during bowel preparation, thus requiring careful consideration from physicians for the simultaneous screening of EGD and colonoscopy.

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.

Comparison of a novel mini-oral sulfate tablet and the conventional oral sulfate tablet in bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, non-inferior, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of conventional oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) has gained popularity; nonetheless, they may be not only inconvenient to swallow but also difficult to dissolve. A novel mini-OST has recently been developed to enhance compliance with conventional OST use. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety between mini-OST and conventional OST.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded, multicenter, and non-inferior phase 3 trial conducted between September 2022 and December 2022. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability were compared between mini-OST and conventional OST.

RESULTS

Exactly 83 patients were evaluated based on a full analysis set (FAS), whereas 82 patients were evaluated as a per-protocol set (PPS). With respect to the efficacy of preparation, successful and high-quality preparation was excellent in the mini-OST and conventional OST groups on both FAS and PPS analyses, without significant differences between the two groups. On the FAS analysis, the satisfaction and tolerability scores were high in both groups, without significant differences. The first bowel movement after taking the investigational product occurred 30 min earlier in the mini-OST group than in the OST group. Mild, moderate, and severe adverse events (AEs) were comparable between the two groups; however, any AEs were more common in the mini-OST group than in the conventional OST group overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional OST, the novel mini-OST preparation showed similar efficacy, tolerability, and safety, including mild eight solicited AEs and moderate-to-severe AEs. Clinical trial registration NCT05670470.

Taking Oral Sulfate Tablets with Simethicone for Bowel Preparation Leads to Higher Adenoma Detection Rate than Polyethylene Glycol: A Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

Efficient bowel preparation is essential for preventing colorectal cancer by improving endoscopic adenoma detection. Tablet for bowel preparation containing sulfate salts, OSTs (oral sulfate tablets), has been developed and it is gaining more popularity. However, its efficacy compared to standard preparation agent, PEG-AA (polyethylene glycol), has not been well discovered. We assessed the efficacy of PEG and OSTs using a real-time clinical data warehouse (CDW) model.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis of consecutive adult patients undergoing colonoscopy who received PEG-AA or OSTs prior to colonoscopy at a tertiary academic hospital. The endoscopic records of 992 adult patients were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical data warehouse collected data including bowel preparation, insertion time, observation time, and the detection of polyps and adenomas. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to reveal the factors associated with endoscopic outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 992 patients included in the study, 770 and 222 patients received PEG-AA and OSTs, respectively. Among the propensity score-matched population (n = 1897), OSTs resulted in better bowel cleansing quality (8.16 vs 7.84, p = 0.014) and a higher adenoma detection rate (38.6% vs 27.1%, p = 0.003). Using PEG-AA, older age, inadequate bowel preparation (BBPS score < 6) and endoscopy by fellows were found to be factors associated with poor adenoma detection. In the elderly over 65 years of age, a significant difference in cleansing quality between the two groups (7.21 vs 8.19, p < 0.001) was found, but its impact on ADR was not prominent (49.5% vs 45.4%, p = 0.653).

CONCLUSIONS

OSTs with simethicone achieved better endoscopic cleanliness, improving adenoma detection rate compared to the conventional PEG-AA protocol. The synergistic effect of both the convenience of taking tablets and the reduction of intraluminal bubble by adjunctive simethicone improves the clinical efficacy of colonoscopy.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of novel oral sulphate tablets [OSTs] vs 2 L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbate [PEG/Asc] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 110 patients with clinically inactive IBD were enrolled in this single-blind multicentre non-inferiority study. Patients were randomly assigned to the OST or 2 L PEG/Asc group and we applied a split-dose regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was bowel cleansing success rate defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale Grade A or B. The secondary endpoints were perfect preparation rate, the presence of air bubbles, safety as assessed by laboratory abnormalities and self-reported adverse events, or IBD symptom flare-ups. Tolerability was assessed by a pre-procedural visual analog scale [VAS] interview.

RESULTS

Both groups showed high cleansing success rates [98.1%] and there was no significant difference in perfect preparation rate. The proportion of a bubble score 0 was significantly higher in the OST group [94.5% vs 50.0%, p < 0.001]. There was no significant intergroup difference in vomiting or bloating. Symptom flare-ups occurred in two OST group patients. No clinically significant blood test abnormalities were noted in either group. Ease of ingestion and taste scores were significantly higher in the OST group. More patients in the OST group [94.5%] wanted to take the same preparation agent for their next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OST and 2 L PEG/Asc demonstrated high successful cleansing and safety in patients with inactive IBD. OST achieved higher satisfaction than 2 L PEG/Asc. Our results suggest that the OST split-dose regimen is effective and safe for patients with inactive IBD.

[Hyponatremic Seizure after Ingestion of an Oral Sulfate Tablet for Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy]

The oral sulfate tablet (OST), commercially available as Orafang^® (Pharmbio Korea Co., Seoul, Korea) in Korea, is being used increasingly because of its bowel-cleansing efficacy, safety, and tolerability in adults undergoing colonoscopy. Other bowel cleansing agents, such as polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate, can cause plasma volume depletion and electrolyte disturbances, such as hyponatremia. On the other hand, the OST has never been reported to cause hyponatremia in Korea. To our knowledge, the authors experienced the first case of hyponatremic seizure in an 81-year-old woman to whom an OST was administered for bowel preparation before a colonoscopy. After ingesting the OST, she presented with seizure, confusion, and dyspnea. Upon arrival, her serum sodium level was 120 mEq/L, and the urine osmolality and sodium levels were 449 mOsm/kg and 253 mOsm/kg, respectively; chest imaging suggested pulmonary edema. The associated symptoms disappeared following treatment with an intravenous injection of normal saline and 3% NaCl to normalize the sodium level. This case shows that the OST can cause hyponatremia and other severe complications related to hyponatremia.

Comparison of Two Types of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol-ascorbic Acid as Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recently, 1-L polyethylene glycol-ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) has been used to reduce the volume of preparation agents in colonoscopy. This clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of two types of 1-L PEG-Asc (CleanViewAL^® [Tae Joon Pharmaceutical Company, Seoul, Korea] and Plenvu^® [Norgine, Harefield, United Kingdom]) in average-aged adults.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 4 clinical trial. The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluated using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), and the secondary endpoint was clinical safety.

RESULTS

In total, 173 patients were assigned to either the CleanViewAL^® (n=84) or Plenvu^® (n=89) group. Overall cleansing successes of 97.6% (82/84) and 98.8% (88/89) were achieved in the CleanViewAL^® group and in the Plenvu^® group, respectively, showing that CleanViewAL^® has similar bowel cleansing efficacy to Plenvu^® (95% CI, -0.052 to 0.027; p=0.207). The total BBPS score was 8.67±1.00 and 8.70±0.76 in the CleanViewAL^® group and Plenvu^® group, respectively (p=0.869). The most common adverse symptom was nausea, and no adverse symptoms requiring hospitalization were reported in either group. There were no cases of critical hypernatremia and liver dysfunction exceeding the common terminology criteria for adverse events grade I. An overall satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 10) showed no difference between the two groups (p=0.289). However, the CleanViewAL^® group showed a higher taste satisfaction score (scale of 1 to 5) than the Plenvu^® group (CleanViewAL^®: 2.90±0.91, Plenvu^®: 2.60±0.86, p=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Both types of 1-L PEG-Asc, CleanViewAL^® and Plenvu^®, are effective and safe bowel cleansing agents in average-aged adults. CleanViewAL^® was preferred in terms of taste satisfaction.

The risk of surgical site infection of oral sulfate tablet versus sodium picosulfate for bowel preparation in colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Purpose

Oral sulfate tablets are abundantly used for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, their efficiency and safety for bowel preparation before colorectal surgery remain ill-defined. Herein, we aimed to compare the surgical site infection rates and efficiency between oral sulfate tablets and sodium picosulfate.

Methods

We designed a prospective, randomized, phase 2 clinical trial. Patients with colorectal cancer aged 19–75 years who underwent elective bowel resection and anastomosis by minimally invasive surgery were administered oral sulfate tablets or sodium picosulfate. Eighty-three cases were analyzed from October 2020 to December 2021. Surgical site infection within 30 days after surgery was considered the primary endpoint. Postoperative morbidities, the degree of bowel cleansing, and tolerability were the secondary endpoints.

Results

Surgical site infection was detected in 1 patient (2.5%) in the oral sulfate tablet group and 2 patients (4.7%) in the sodium picosulfate group, indicating no significant difference between the 2 groups. Postoperative morbidity and the degree of bowel cleansing bore no statistically significant differences. Furthermore, none of the investigated tolerability criteria, namely bloating, pain, nausea, vomiting, and discomfort, differed significantly between the 2 groups. The patients’ willingness to reuse the drug was also not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

Although we could not establish the noninferiority of oral sulfate tablets to sodium picosulfate, we found no evidence suggesting that oral sulfate tablets are less safe or tolerable than sodium picosulfate in preoperative bowel preparation.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety between oral sulfate tablet and polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy according to age

BACKGROUND

Recently, a novel oral sulfate tablet (OST) has been introduced for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. However, whether elderly patients can take OST is not yet clear, as OST consists of 28 tablets. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of OST and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for bowel preparation for colonoscopy according to age.

METHODS

We randomly divided subjects into an OST group and a PEG group and compared Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), bubble score, patient compliance and satisfaction, and safety between the 2 groups according to age (under 65 years of age vs 65 years of age and older).

RESULTS

Among the 179 participants, 61 were 65 years of age and older. The BBPS and bubble score of the OST group were better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The satisfaction of the OST group was better than that of the PEG group, regardless of age. The compliance was not different between the 2 groups; however, the OST group under 65 years of age had a higher rate of completing the dose within 2 hours compared with the PEG group under 65 years of age. Adverse events including abdominal distension, abdominal pain, nausea, or vomiting were not different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of OST for bowel preparation before colonoscopy is as effective and safe as PEG, and these results were consistent in elderly people 65 years of age and older.

Effect of oral simethicone on the quality of colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effect of oral simethicone (SIM), an antifoaming agent, on the quality of colonoscopy in terms of bowel preparation quality, adenoma or polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR).

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of SIM during bowel preparation for colonoscopy published up to 17 March 2021 were identified from the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Bowel preparation quality, ADR/PDR/CIR, cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time (WT), patients' tolerability, acceptability and volume of foam and bubbles were compared between the SIM and non-SIM groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RCTs with 10 505 patients were included. Oral SIM significantly increased the rate of total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score ≥6 (risk ratio [RR]  1.13, P < 0.0001), acceptability (RR  1.15, P = 0.01) and the rate of no or minimal foam and bubbles (RR  1.28, P < 0.00001) and decreased abdominal distension (RR  0.64, P < 0.0001). However, it had no significant impact on overall ADR, overall PDR, CIR, CIT or WT. The rate of total BBPS score ≥6 remained significantly higher in the SIM group when a single-dose laxative regimen or a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg was employed; and ADR, PDR and CIR were significantly increased in the SIM group among colonoscopy clinicians who achieved an ADR <31%, PDR <45% and CIR <96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral SIM can improve bowel preparation quality, especially in patients receiving a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg or a single-dose laxative regimen. SIM may be preferred by junior colonoscopy physicians/trainees with a lower ADR/PDR or CIR.

Randomized trial of oral sulfate solution versus polyethylene glycol-ascorbic acid for bowel cleansing in elderly people

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The efficacy and safety of the recently introduced low-volume purgatives in elderly people are not well known. Therefore, in this trial, we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of two low-volume agents, oral sulfate solution (OSS) and 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc), in elderly people.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, non-inferiority trial was performed at three university-affiliated hospitals in South Korea. Outpatients aged 65-80 years, who underwent elective colonoscopy, were enrolled. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate bowel preparation assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 199 subjects were randomized into the OSS (n = 99) or the 2-L PEG-Asc (n = 100) group. Of them, 189 subjects were included in the analysis of the primary outcome (OSS group 95 vs PEG-Asc group 94). The proportion of adequate bowel preparation was 89.5% (85/95) in the OSS group and 93.6% (88/94) in the 2-L PEG-Asc group. OSS was not inferior to 2-L PEG-Asc according to the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -15% (95% confidence interval for the difference, -12.1 to 3.8). Vomiting (11.6% vs 2.1%) and thirst (24.2% vs 11.7%) were more common in the OSS group than in the 2-L PEG-Asc group.

CONCLUSIONS

OSS is an effective low-volume purgative that is non-inferior to 2-L PEG-Asc in elderly people. Both the low-volume agents were identified to be well tolerated and safe in the healthy elderly population.

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Safe and appropriate use of laxatives for colonoscopy

Background: Appropriate bowel preparation is essential for effective colonoscopy. Inadequate use of bowel preparation solutions reduces patient compliance, makes the detection of lesions such as adenoma difficult, and increases the risk of complication such as perforation. Current Concepts: A 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution can be safely used for bowel preparation, even in most individuals with underlying diseases. However, it requires a high preparation-volume intake and has poor patient compliance due to its unpleasant taste. Therefore, a 2- or 1- L sulfate-free, PEG-based laxative was developed to, reduce the amount of PEG and improve the taste. Furthermore, simethicon-containing laxative formulation was developed to eliminate gas bubbles. In addition, oral bowel preparation solutions with enema agents and prokinetics were used to improve bowel preparation, but no improvement was observed. Various alternative laxatives are available; however, PEG-based bowel preparation solutions are still recommended in most cases due to their stability. Discussion and Conclusion: Although a 4-L PEG solutions recommended for bowel preparation in most cases, several laxatives have been introduced to overcome its disadvantages. The laxative agent must be selected according to each patient’s specific characteristics. Moreover, the method of taking bowel preparation solutions and additional bowel preparation medications must be carefully chosen. In addition, patient education via various methods, such as using a smartphone, when taking a bowel preparation agent may help improve bowel preparation quality.

A Phase 2 Randomized Trial of DCL-101, a Novel Pill-Based Colonoscopy Prep, vs 4L Polyethylene Glycol-Electrolyte Solution

INTRODUCTION:

DCL-101, a novel Pill Prep, is compositionally identical to standard 4L polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) and delivers the salt encapsulated, with PEG 3350 coadministered as a taste-free oral solution. The aim of this study was to compare the safety, taste, and tolerability of DCL-101 with 4L PEG-ELS in outpatients preparing for colonoscopy, with a secondary objective to assess efficacy.

METHODS:

This was a multicenter, randomized, investigator-blinded, phase 2 clinical trial of 45 adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Patients were randomized 2:1 to either DCL-101 (3L in cohort 1; 4L in cohort 2) or 4L PEG-ELS, each administered with split dosing. Safety was assessed over 3 post-treatment clinic visits. Tolerability was measured using the Lawrance Bowel-Preparation Tolerability Questionnaire and the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire. Efficacy was determined by expert central readers, blinded to treatment, using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and Aronchick scale.

RESULTS:

Both DCL-101 doses had superior taste and tolerability relative to 4L PEG-ELS. All adverse events were grade 1 with no significant differences in adverse events among the 3 regimens. There were no significant differences in efficacy among the 3 treatments as defined by the centrally read Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, or Aronchick scores. There were no inadequate preps as judged by the site endoscopist.

DISCUSSION:

DCL-101 Pill Prep is a novel strategy that vastly improves the taste and tolerability of PEG-ELS solutions with safety and efficacy comparable with split-dose 4L PEG-ELS solutions.

[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.