Clinical comparison of low-volume agents (oral sulfate solution and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate) for bowel preparation: the EASE study

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.

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.

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.

Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality

Continuous measurement of quality indicators (QIs) should be a routine part of colonoscopy, as a wide variation still exists in the performance and quality levels of colonoscopy in Korea. Among the many QIs of colonoscopy, the adenoma detection rate, average withdrawal time, bowel preparation adequacy, and cecal intubation rate should be monitored in daily clinical practice to improve the quality of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate is the best indicator of the quality of colonoscopy; however, it has many limitations for universal use in daily practice. With the development of natural language processing, the adenoma detection rate is expected to become more effective and useful. It is important that colonoscopists do not strictly and mechanically maintain an average withdrawal time of 6 minutes but instead perform careful colonoscopy to maximally expose the colonic mucosa with a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes. To achieve adequate bowel preparation, documentation of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) should be a routine part of colonoscopy. When colonoscopists routinely followed the bowel preparation protocols, ≥85% of outpatient screening colonoscopies had a BBPS score of ≥6. In addition, the cecal intubation rate should be ≥95% of all screening colonoscopies. The first step in improving colonoscopy quality in Korea is to apply these key performance measurements in clinical practice.

Correlation between Surrogate Quality Indicators for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Miss Rate in Qualified Colonoscopy, CORE Study: KASID Multicenter Study

Background/Aims

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) does not reflect the complete detection of every adenoma during colonoscopy; thus, many surrogate indicators have been suggested. This study investigated whether the ADR and surrogate quality indicators reflect the adenoma miss rate (AMR) when performing qualified colonoscopy.

Methods

We performed a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study of asymptomatic examinees aged 50 to 75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by eight endoscopists. The ADR and surrogate quality indicators, including polyp detection rate, total number of adenomas per colonoscopy, additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and total number of adenomas per positive participant, were calculated for the prediction of AMR.

Results

A total of 371 back-to-back colonoscopies were performed. There was a significant difference in ADRs (range, 44% to 75.4%; p=0.024), polyp detection rates (range, 56% to 86.9%; p=0.008) and adenomas per positive participants (range, 1.19 to 2.30; p=0.038), and a tendency of a difference in adenomas per colonoscopy (range, 0.62 to 1.31; p=0.051) and ADR-Plus (range, 0.13 to 0.70; p=0.054) among the endoscopists. The overall AMR was 20.1%, and AMRs were not different (range, 13.9 to 28.6; p>0.05) among the endoscopists. No quality indicators were significantly correlated with AMR. The number of adenomas found during the first colonoscopy was an independent factor for increased AMR (odds ratio, 1.79; p<0.001).

Conclusions

The colonoscopy quality indicators were significantly different among high-ADR endoscopists, and none of the quality indicators reflected the AMR of good quality colonoscopy performances. The only factor influencing AMR was the number of adenomas detected during colonoscopy.

[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.