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.

Oral Sulfate Solution Is as Effective as Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation in Patients with Inactive Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized, Multicenter, and Single-Blind Clinical Trial.

Background/Aims: Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy are gaining attention for their higher acceptability. However, the efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution (OSS) preparations in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) has not been well known. Therefore, we aimed to compare OSS and 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) for bowel preparation in inactive UC. Methods: A multicenter, randomized, single-blind study was conducted at six tertiary referral hospitals in Korea. Outpatients with UC who had stable disease activity were randomly allocated to the OSS group or the 2-L PEG+Asc group for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The study outcomes included treatment efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability. Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and rated as successful cleansing if the score was ≥6. Patient acceptance and tolerability were assessed using a 4-point ordinal scale. Additionally, disease activity and laboratory data before and after colonoscopy were evaluated to check for safety. Results: The OSS and 2-L PEG+Asc groups included 92 and 93 participants, respectively. No significant between-group difference was noted in successful cleansing (OSS [96.7%] vs 2-L PEG+Asc [97.8%], p=0.64). Moreover, the safety, acceptance, and tolerability were not significantly different (all p>0.05). Furthermore, no significant changes were found in serum electrolytes or disease activity in either group. Conclusions: OSS is effective for colonoscopy cleansing, has acceptable tolerability, and does not affect disease activity; thus, it can be used safely for bowel preparation in patients with inactive UC.

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.

Efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution for bowel preparation in Japanese patients undergoing colonoscopy: Noninferiority-based, randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of oral sulfate solution administered using the same-day dose and the split-dose regimens with those of polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate solution, used for bowel preparation in Japanese patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: This multicenter (n = 13), randomized, active-controlled, colonoscopist- and image evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study with parallel-group comparison recruited 632 patients from December 2018 to June 2019. Of these, 602 patients were divided into the oral sulfate solution same-day dose group (n = 200); oral sulfate solution split-dose group (n = 202); and polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate same-day dose group (n = 200). Differences in the efficacy rates between the polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate group and each oral sulfate solution group were calculated using the asymptotic method. The safety of the oral sulfate solution was evaluated, based on the occurrence of adverse events and reactions. RESULTS: Both oral sulfate solution protocols were confirmed as noninferior to the polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate protocol for bowel-cleansing. The occurrence of adverse reactions was significantly lower in the oral sulfate solution same-day dose group than in the polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate group (P = 0.010). The occurrence of adverse reactions was not significantly different between the oral sulfate solution split-dose and the polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate group. CONCLUSIONS: Oral sulfate solution is not only safe and efficacious but also not inferior to polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate solution (active control). It could be used for bowel preparation in Japanese patients scheduled for colonoscopy (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03794310).

Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The quality of bowel preparation is one of the quality indicators for colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-AA) for bowel preparation. METHODS: The study involved 167 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopies. Inadequate bowel preparation was defined as any score of ≤1 in each colon section based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the efficacy of OSS and PEG-AA. Subgroup analyses were performed based on patient characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 106 (63.5%) patients received OSS, and 61 (36.5%) patients received PEG-AA. The rate of inadequate bowel preparation was 12.3% in patients receiving OSS and 32.8% in patients receiving PEG-AA (p=0.001). OSS (odds ratio [OR] = 0.26; p=0.003) and morning examination (OR=0.11; p=0.038) were significantly associated with efficient bowel preparation. The efficacy of OSS compared with PEG-AA was only significant in patients ≥50 years of age vs. <50 years of age (OR=0.13; p=0.001 vs. OR=0.96; p=0.959) and female vs. male patients (OR=0.06; p=0.002 vs. OR=0.58; p=0.339). CONCLUSION: OSS was significantly more efficient for bowel preparation than PEG-AA, especially in patients ≥50 years of age and female patients. Morning examination led to a good quality of bowel preparation, irrespective of the preparation regimen.

A prospective randomized clinical study evaluating the efficacy and compliance of oral sulfate solution and 2-L ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Oral sulfate solution (OSS) is an emerging cleansing agent for bowel preparation. However, data comparing OSS to other conventional bowel preparations in Asian patients are limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of OSS to ascorbic acid plus polyethylene glycol (AA + PEG) in Asian patients. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, parallel, investigator-blind study performed in two university hospitals in Korea. Bowel preparation efficacy was evaluated using both the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). RESULTS: Among 173 patients, 86 received OSS while 87 received AA + PEG for bowel preparation. Total OBPS score was 2.80 ± 2.48 in the OSS group and 4.49 ± 3.08 in the AA + PEG group, indicating significantly (p < 0.001) better efficacy with OSS. Total BBPS was higher in the OSS group (7.43 ± 1.49 vs. 6.51 ± 1.76, p < 0.001), indicating superior bowel preparation quality with OSS. Preparation-related adverse events were generally acceptable. Patients receiving OSS had more nausea (1.92 ± 0.94 vs. 1.54 ± 0.76, p = 0.004) and abdominal cramping (1.45 ± 0.78 vs. 1.17 ± 0.51, p = 0.006) than those receiving AA + PEG. However, overall satisfaction and taste were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: OSS had a non-inferior bowel cleansing efficacy than AA + PEG regardless of colon segment.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study compared the efficacy, compliance, and safety of bowel preparation between sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and oral sulfate solution (OSS). METHODS: A prospective randomized multicenter study was performed. Split preparation methods were performed in both groups; the SPMC group, 2 sachets on the day before, and 1 sachet on the day of the procedure, the OSS group, half of the OSS with 1 L of water on both the day before and the day of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), adequacy of bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, patient satisfaction on a visual analog scale (VAS), and safety were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: This study analyzed 229 patients (121 in the SPMC group and 108 in the OSS group). ADR showed no differences between 2 groups (51.7% vs. 41.7%, P> 0.05). The mean total BBPS score (7.95 vs. 8.11, P> 0.05) and adequate bowel preparation rate (94.9% vs. 96.3%, P> 0.05) were similar between the 2 groups. The mean VAS score for taste (7.62 vs. 6.87, P=0.006) was significantly higher in the SPMC group than in the OSS group. There were no significant differences in any other safety variables between the 2 groups except nausea symptom (36.1% vs. 20.3%, P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation for colonoscopy using low volume OSS and SPMC yielded similar ADRs and levels of efficacy. SPMC had higher levels of satisfaction for taste and feeling than did OSS.

Bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: Balancing efficacy, safety, cost and patient tolerance.

Effective colorectal cancer screening relies on reliable colonoscopy findings which are themselves dependent on adequate bowel cleansing. Research has consistently demonstrated that inadequate bowel preparation adversely affects the adenoma detection rate and leads gastroenterologists to recommend earlier follow up than is consistent with published guidelines. Poor preparation affects as many as 30% of colonoscopies and contributes to an increased cost of colonoscopies. Patient tolerability is strongly affected by the preparation chosen and manner in which it is administered. Poor tolerability is, in turn, associated with lower quality bowel preparations. Recently, several new developments in both agents being used for bowel preparation and in the timing of administration have brought endoscopists closer to achieving the goal of effective, reliable, safe, and tolerable regimens. Historically, large volume preparations given in a single dose were administered to patients in order to achieve adequate bowel cleansing. These were poorly tolerated, and the unpleasant taste of and significant side effects produced by these large volume regimens contributed significantly to patients' inability to reliably complete the preparation and to a reluctance to repeat the procedure. Smaller volumes, including preparations that are administered as tablets to be consumed with water, given as split doses have significantly improved both the patient experience and efficacy, and an appreciation of the importance of the preparation to colonoscopy interval have produced additional cleansing.

Cost-analysis model of colonoscopy preparation using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS).

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to (1) develop a cost model for colonoscopy preparation among patients referred for colonoscopy using split-dose reduced-volume oral sulfate solution (OSS) and generic polyethylene glycol with electrolytes solution (PEG-ELS), (2) examine cost savings associated with OSS vs PEG-ELS, and (3) assess the robustness of the cost model. METHODS: Efficacy of each agent was based on the results of a 541-patient clinical trial comparing OSS to PEG-ELS. Cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs were calculated from OptumHealth Reporting & Insights claims data for 2010-Q12013. In the model, patients' colonoscopies were tracked over a 25 or 35 year time period until the patients reached age 75. The difference per patient per year (PPPY) in total cleansing agent and colonoscopy procedure costs over the time horizon between the OSS and PEG-ELS cohort was calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the cost model. RESULTS: The model showed lower cost for OSS patients over the time horizon. Total PPPY costs were $280.34 for the OSS cohort and $296.36 for the PEG-ELS cohort, resulting in a cost saving of $16.01 PPPY for the OSS cohort. This was due primarily to OSS patients having fewer colonoscopies (OSS: 0.158 vs PEG-ELS: 0.170 PPPY). Over the time horizon, cost savings of $4 763 335 were observed among 10, 000 OSS patients. Cost savings switched from OSS to PEG-ELS cohort in four cases: (1) base-case cost of a completed colonoscopy decreased by 75%, (2) base-case cost of OSS increased to over $143 per usage, (3) all non-completers were lost to follow-up, and (4) OSS bowel preparation quality dropped below PEG-ELS to 70%. CONCLUSIONS: From a payer's perspective, the model showed that the use of OSS as the cleansing agent resulted in potential cost savings compared with PEG-ELS. Cost savings under OSS remained under various sensitivity analyses.

Polyethylene glycol plus an oral sulfate solution as a bowel cleansing regimen for colon capsule endoscopy: a prospective, single-arm study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: As with colonoscopy, adequate bowel cleansing is essential prior to colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). Because CCE requires that the capsule traverse the entire gastrointestinal tract during the examination, laxative 'boosters' are used. The objective of this prospective, single-center, single-arm study was to evaluate the safety of a bowel preparation consisting of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus an oral sulfate solution. METHODS: Subjects were healthy volunteers aged 50-75 years old with normal baseline serum chemistry. The bowel preparation consisted of 4 Senna tablets, 4 liters of PEG (split dose), 10 mg metoclopramide, 2 oral sulfate solution boosters (6 oz. and 3 oz.), and 10 mg bisacodyl. Serum chemistry was performed at baseline, following PEG intake, 24 hours after bisacodyl administration, and at 7 days post procedure (in subjects with abnormal 24 hour results). The primary endpoints were the percentage of subjects with a clinically significant change in serum chemistry at the last test and the adverse event (AE) rate. RESULTS: A total of 25 subjects were enrolled. The serum chemistry was normal in all subjects at the final evaluation. One subject showed a slight elevation in creatinine (1.08 mg/dl 7 days post procedure from 0.84 mg/dl at baseline), deemed not clinically significant. Another subject had a transient elevation in serum creatinine (from 1.01 mg/dl at baseline to 1.45 mg/dl at 24 hours after the bowel preparation); values returned to near baseline at 7 days post procedure (1.06 mg/dl). There were no serious AEs, three moderate AEs related to the bowel preparation (nausea, headache, elevated creatinine) and two mild unrelated AEs (chills, abdominal cramping). CONCLUSIONS: A bowel cleansing regimen of PEG plus an oral sulfate solution can be used in healthy volunteers. These data provide support for the continued study of this regimen in future CCE clinical trials and in medical practice.