Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The 1-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel preparation agent NER1006 (Plenvu; Norgine, Harefield, UK) has shown high cleansing efficacy and tolerability in clinical trials in Europe and North America. However, no clinical trials have yet been reported in Asia. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 1L PEG-based bowel preparation with Plenvu compared with 2L PEG plus ascorbate bowel preparation in a Korean population. METHODS: In this multicenter, endoscopist-blinded, randomized study, patients at 9 hospitals in South Korea undergoing colonoscopy received either Plenvu or 2L PEG + ascorbate (2L PEG) with a split dose. The primary endpoint was overall bowel cleansing success (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale [BBPS] score ≥2 for all segments of the colon). Secondary endpoints were high-quality bowel cleansing success (overall, BBPS score = 9; segmental colon, BPPS score = 3), polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma detection rate (ADR). RESULTS: Of 360 included patients, cleansing efficacy was analyzed in 346 (Plenvu, 174; 2L PEG, 172). The Plenvu group showed noninferior bowel cleansing success rates compared with 2L PEG (93.10% vs 91.86%; difference, 1.24%; 1-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit, -4.31%; Pnoninferiority < .0001; Psuperiority = .661). The Plenvu group had higher high-quality bowel cleansing success rates for overall and right-sided colon segments than the 2L PEG group (49.43% vs 37.79% [P = .029] and 60.92% vs 48.84% [P = .024], respectively). The PDR was greater with Plenvu than with 2L PEG (48.85% vs 37.79%, P = .038). However, ADR did not differ between the 2 groups (24.71% vs 20.35%, P = .331). Although treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were slightly higher in the Plenvu group than in the 2L PEG group (65.71% vs 52.91%, P = .015), most TEAEs were mild (85.55%) and most patients recovered without any management (99.23%). CONCLUSIONS: Plenvu showed noninferior overall bowel cleansing success rates comparable with 2L PEG but greater high-quality bowel cleansing in overall and right-sided colon, which might help improve the PDR in the Asian population. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0005894.).

The use of low-volume polyethylene glycol containing ascorbic acid versus 2 L of polyethylene glycol plus bisacodyl as bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations have been developed to improve compliance for colonoscopy. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid for colonoscopy against 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive inpatients who had not undergone polypectomy at the index colonoscopy and were subsequently referred for polypectomy at our hospital. A total of 62 patients were randomized to receive either low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid (n = 31) or 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl (n = 31) as a split-dose regimen in inpatients. The efficacy of preparation was determined using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Score (OBPS) and a 4-point scale. Adverse events, tolerability, and willingness were evaluated using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Based on the OBPS and 4-point scale, we determined that the efficacy of low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid was comparable to that of the 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl (p = 0.071 for OBPS, p = 0.056 for the 4-point scale). Adverse events were comparable between the two groups (p = 1.000). A greater proportion of patients in the low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid (90.6%) and the 2L of PEG plus bisacodyl (96.9%) were willing to repeat the same preparation for subsequent colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid had comparable efficacy and tolerability to 2 L of PEG plus bisacodyl, when given as a split dose, for colonoscopy in inpatients. Split-dose low-volume PEG containing ascorbic acid is a good alternative for bowel preparation for colonoscopy in inpatients.

Efficacy and Safety of TJP-008 Compared to 2 L PEG with Ascorbate in Colon Cleansing: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel preparations are effective cleansing agents for colonoscopy. However, they require relatively large volumes to be used even with agents such as 2 L PEG with ascorbate (2LPEG). This phase 3, randomized, single-blinded, multicenter, parallel-group study compared the efficacy of 1 L PEG with high-dose ascorbate, TJP-008, to 2LPEG. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1:1) to receive TJP-008 as 1-day split dose (TJP-008-1) or 2-day split dose (TJP-008-2) regimen or to receive 2LPEG as a 2-day split dose regimen. Cleansing efficacy was evaluated using the Harefield Cleansing Scale. The primary endpoint was overall bowel cleansing success. Full analysis set (FAS) and per protocol set (PPS) analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of the 314 screened patients, efficacy was assessed in the following patient numbers (FAS/PPS): total (293/285), TJP-008-1 (98/94), TJP-008-2 (97/95), and 2LPEG (98/96). FAS revealed noninferiority between TJP-008 and 2LPEG with regard to overall success (TJP-008-2, 99.0%; TJP-008-1, 95.9%; 2LPEG, 94.9%; p=0.100 and p=0.733, respectively). PPS also showed noninferiority (p=0.721 and p=0.211, respectively). However, the PPS analyses showed a higher bowel cleansing score for TJP-008-2 for high-quality cleansing in the right colon (TJP-008-2 83.2% vs 2LPEG 62.5%; p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: TJP-008 is a new low-volume cleansing agent with a colon cleansing efficacy comparable to that of standard 2LPEG that exhibits significant safety and tolerability.

Comparison between the Effectiveness of Oral Phloroglucin and Cimetropium Bromide as Premedication for Diagnostic Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: An Open-Label, Randomized, Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Suppression of gastrointestinal (GI) peristalsis during GI endoscopy commonly requires antispasmodic agents such as hyoscine butylbromide, atropine, glucagon, and cimetropium bromide. This study examined the efficacy of oral phloroglucin for the suppression of peristalsis, its impact on patient compliance, and any associated complications, and compared it with intravenous or intramuscular cimetropium bromide administration. METHODS: This was a randomized, investigator-blind, prospective comparative study. A total of 172 patients were randomized into two groups according to the following medications administered prior to upper endoscopy: oral phloroglucin (group A, n=86), and cimetropium bromide (group B, n=86). The numbers and the degrees of peristalsis events at the antrum and second duodenal portion were assessed for 30 seconds. RESULTS: A significantly higher number of gastric peristalsis events was observed in group A (0.49 vs. 0.08, p<0.001), but the difference was not clinically significant. No significant difference between both groups was found in the occurrence of duodenal peristalsis events (1.79 vs. 1.63, p=0.569). The incidence of dry mouth was significantly higher with cimetropium bromide than with phloroglucin (50% vs. 15.1%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral phloroglucin can be used as an antispasmodic agent during upper endoscopy, and shows antispasmodic efficacy and adverse effects similar to those of cimetropium bromide.