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

Navigating Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Comprehensive Overview

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States. Early detection through colonoscopy significantly improves survival rates. Detecting colon polyps depends on the quality of bowel preparation. However, inadequate bowel preparation remains a significant issue in clinical practice. Efforts to address this challenge have led to the development of bowel preparation regimens emphasizing efficacy, tolerability, and safety. Bowel preparation options can be categorized by their osmotic and volume properties. Isosmotic solutions based on polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solutions (PEG-ELS) are available in both low-volume PEG-ELS with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) (e.g., MoviPrep, PLENVU) and high-volume formulations (e.g., GoLYTELY, CoLyte), as well as sulfate-free high-volume PEG-ELS formulations (SF-PEG-ELS). Hyperosmotic solutions include oral sulfate solution (OSS) (e.g., SUPREP), sodium phosphate tablets (NaP) (e.g., OsmoPrep), oral sulfate tablets (OST) (e.g., SUTAB), flavored PEG with sulfate salts (FPSS) (e.g., SUFLAVE), and magnesium citrate. Hypoosmotic solutions consist of PEG-sports drink (PEG-SD). In addition, combination solutions are available, such as sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) with laxatives (e.g., CLENPIQ), and OSS with SF-PEG-ELS (Suclear). Each regimen differs in terms of cost, volume, taste, contraindications, and potential adverse effects. Therefore, clinicians must carefully evaluate each patient to determine the most suitable regimen for their patients.

Acute Gastropathy Associated with Bowel Preparation According to Age: Oral Sulfate Tablets versus 1-L Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid

Background/Aims

The use of 1-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEG/Asc) and oral sulfate tablets (OST) as low-volume bowel preparation agents has gradually increased. However, these agents may induce acute gastropathy during bowel preparation, particularly in elderly populations. This study aimed to compare the incidence of acute gastropathy of 1-L PEG/Asc and OST according to age, as well as efficacy and safety.

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy for screening on the same day and underwent bowel preparation using OST or 1-L PEG/Asc. We collected EGD findings related to acute gastropathy, bowel-cleansing score using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), polyp or adenoma detection rate (ADR), and laboratory parameters.

Results

Of 4,711 patients, 1,758, 2,241, and 712 were in the younger (18-49 years), middle-aged (50-64 years), and older (≥65 years) groups, respectively. In all age groups, the OST group had higher rates of acute gastropathy than the 1-L PEG/Asc group. The younger-, middle-, and older-aged groups had OST and 1-L PEG/Asc usage rates of 42.9% and 11.6%, 41.2% and 16.0%, and 41.5% and 16.4%, respectively. Notably, in the younger group, the total BBPS and ADR scores were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 1-L PEG/Asc group; however, these did not differ in the other age groups.

Conclusions

Acute gastropathy was more strongly associated with OST than with 1-L PEG/Asc in all age groups. Therefore, physicians should consider acute gastropathy associated with low-volume agents in all age groups when performing bowel preparation.

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.