Efficacy and Safety of Pea Protein and Xyloglucan Versus Simethicone in Functional Abdominal Bloating and Distension.

BACKGROUND: Functional Abdominal Bloating and Distension (FABD) is a multifaceted condition related in part to trapped gas, with changes in the intestinal barrier and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), which lead to gas production. Currently, there are no treatments targeting the etiology of FABD. METHODS: This double-blind, multicenter, randomized study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a product containing xyloglucan and pea proteins (XG + PP) compared with simethicone, both administered orally (three times daily) for 20 consecutive days. Eighty-eight patients with FABD were randomly assigned to the two groups in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was safety; secondary outcomes were (i) efficacy in alleviating the symptoms of FABD and (ii) efficacy in reducing SIBO, as assessed by hydrogen breath test (HBT). RESULTS: No Adverse Events or Serious Unexpected Adverse Reactions were reported during the study. XG + PP showed a faster onset of action and a significant reduction in bloating and abdominal pain compared with simethicone. At Day 20, XG + PP drastically reduced abdominal girth when compared with simethicone, with an average reduction of 4.7 cm versus 1.8 cm. At Day 20, the XG + PP arm showed a significant reduction in HBT compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the evidence that FABD patients may benefit from a XG + PP-based treatment that acts on etiology and not just the symptoms.

Shortening Oral Simethicone-to-Colonoscopy Interval Increases Bowel Preparation Quality.

BACKGROUND Simethicone can improve bowel preparation quality, but the optimal timing of oral simethicone before colonoscopy has not been determined. This study aimed to explore the effect of the time interval between oral simethicone and the start of colonoscopy (S-C) on bowel preparation quality. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 364 patients undergoing colonoscopy at our department from August 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 were included in the training cohort, and 420 consecutive patients from December 15, 2021 to January 31, 2022 comprised the validation cohort. They were classified into short and long S-C groups according to the median S-C. Bowel preparation quality evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was compared between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the correlation between S-C and bowel preparation quality, and we explored the effect of run-way time and time of starting colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. RESULTS In the training cohort, 182 and 182 patients were classified into the short and long S-C groups, respectively; in the validation cohort, 210 and 210 patients were classified into the 2 groups, respectively. In the 2 cohorts, the short S-C group had a significantly higher rate of adequate/excellent bowel preparation than the long S-C group. Logistic regression analyses showed that shorter S-C, shorter run-way time, and colonoscopy in the morning were all correlated with adequate/excellent bowel preparation. CONCLUSIONS Bowel preparation quality may be affected by S-C, run-way time, and time of starting colonoscopy. S-C shortening should be given equal importance as run-way time shortening.

Simethicone use in drug-induced sleep endoscopy improves visibility.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of simethicone, a defoaming agent, on improving visibility during drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) in obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). METHODS: The study was a retrospective case-series study on patients with OSA who failed positive airway pressure (PAP) treatment. Patient parameters were recorded including age, BMI, neck and abdominal circumference, and apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Comparisons were made between DISE procedures performed with and without the administration of simethicone. Visibility during DISE was independently graded by two surgeons, and inter-rater reliability was assessed. RESULTS: Simethicone significantly improved DISE visibility (p = 0.03). "Best visibility" was achieved in 55% of cases with simethicone compared to 27% without simethicone (p = 0.02). Sub-analysis showed that only simethicone administration had a significant effect on visibility (p = 0.02). Inter-rater reliability between the grading surgeons was strong (Cohen-Kappa score 0.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that simethicone enhances DISE visibility for OSA surgical planning. Further research should explore optimizing simethicone administration timing and the potential clinical implications for surgical outcomes and patient care.

Effect of simethicone for the management of early abdominal distension after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a multicenter retrospective propensity score matching study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether simethicone expediates the remission of abdominal distension after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). METHODS: This retrospective study involved LC patients who either received perioperative simethicone treatment or not. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize bias. The primary endpoint was the remission rate of abdominal distension within 24 h after LC. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify independent risk factors affecting the early remission of abdominal distension after LC. Subsequently, a prediction model was established and validated. RESULTS: A total of 1,286 patients were divided into simethicone (n = 811) and non-simethicone groups (n = 475) as 2:1 PSM. The patients receiving simethicone had better remission rates of abdominal distension at both 24 h and 48 h after LC (49.2% vs. 34.7%, 83.9% vs. 74.8%, respectively), along with shorter time to the first flatus (14.6 ± 11.1 h vs. 17.2 ± 9.1 h, P < 0.001) compared to those without. Multiple logistic regression identified gallstone (OR = 0.33, P = 0.001), cholecystic polyp (OR = 0.53, P = 0.050), preoperative abdominal distention (OR = 0.63, P = 0.002) and simethicone use (OR = 1.89, P < 0.001) as independent factors contributing to the early remission of abdominal distension following LC. The prognosis model developed for predicting remission rates of abdominal distension within 24 h after LC yielded an area under the curve of 0.643 and internal validation a value of 0.644. CONCLUSIONS: Simethicone administration significantly enhanced the early remission of post-LC abdominal distension, particularly for patients who had gallstones, cholecystic polyp, prolonged anesthesia or preoperative abdominal distention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2200064964 (24/10/2022).

Effect of an Antacid (Aluminum Hydroxide/Magnesium Hydroxide/Simethicone) or a Proton Pump Inhibitor (Omeprazole) on the Pharmacokinetics of Tebipenem Pivoxil Hydrobromide (TBP-PI-HBr) in Healthy Adult Subjects.

Tebipenem pivoxil hydrobromide (TBP-PI-HBr) is a novel oral carbapenem prodrug being developed for the treatment of serious bacterial infections. This open-label, 3-period, fixed sequence study evaluated the effect of gastric acid-reducing agents, aluminum hydroxide/magnesium hydroxide/simethicone, and omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of tebipenem (TBP), the active moiety, following coadministration with immediate release TBP-PI-HBr during fasting. In Period 1, subjects received a single oral dose of TBP-PI-HBr 600 mg (2 × 300 mg tablets). In Period 2, subjects received a single oral dose of aluminum hydroxide 800 mg/magnesium hydroxide 800 mg/simethicone 80 mg suspension co-administered with a single dose of TBP-PI-HBr 600 mg. In Period 3, subjects received a single oral dose of omeprazole 40 mg once daily over 5 days, followed by single dose administration of TBP-PI-HBr 600 mg on day 5. In each period, whole blood samples were obtained prior to, and up to 24 h, following TBP-PI-HBr dose administration in order to characterize TBP PK. A 7-day washout was required between periods. Twenty subjects were enrolled and completed the study. Following co-administration of TBP-PI-HBr with either aluminum hydroxide/magnesium hydroxide/simethicone or omeprazole, total TBP exposure (area under the curve [AUC]) was approximately 11% (geometric mean ratio 89.2, 90% confidence interval: 83,2, 95.7) lower, and Cmax was 22% (geometric mean ratio 78.4, 90% confidence interval: 67.9, 90.6) and 43% (geometric mean ratio 56.9, 90% confidence interval: 49.2, 65.8) lower, respectively, compared to administration of TBP-PI-HBr alone. Mean TBP elimination half-life (t1/2) was generally comparable across treatments (range: 1.0 to 1.5 h). Concomitant administration of TBP-PI-HBr with omeprazole or aluminum hydroxide/magnesium hydroxide/simethicone is not expected to impact the efficacy of TBP-PI-HBr, as there is minimal impact on TBP plasma AUC, which is the pharmacodynamic driver of efficacy. Co-administration was generally safe and well tolerated.

Minimizing the Risks of Simethicone in Endoscope Reprocessing.

This statement was written under the auspices of the World Gastroenterology Organization's Guidelines Committee. The authors are members of the Review Team of the WGO Endoscope Disinfection Guideline and have experience in endoscopy, endoscope reprocessing, and microbiology, including biofilms. During the preparation of the WGO Update on Endoscope Disinfection Guidelines, concerns about simethicone on endoscope channel surfaces compromising cleaning and disinfection were raised. Publications on simethicone, including modes of delivery, effectiveness, and risks, have been reviewed. The paper was written as a companion to the new guidelines with a focus on minimizing the risks of simethicone in endoscope reprocessing.

Cleaning effect and tolerance of 16 bowel preparation regimens on adult patients before colonoscopy: a network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). Before a colonoscopy, an adequate bowel preparation (BP) is required. Currently, more novel regimens with different effects have been proposed and used successively. This network meta-analysis aims to compare the cleaning effects and patients' tolerability of several BP regimens. METHODS: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials including sixteen kinds of BP regimens. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases. The outcomes of this study were bowel cleansing effect and tolerance. RESULTS: We included a total of 40 articles with 13,064 patients. For the primary outcomes, polyethylene glycol (PEG) + ascorbic acid (Asc) + simethicone (Sim) (OR, 14.27, 95%CrI, 2.68-127.87) regimen is ranked first in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). PEG + Sim (OR, 2.0, 95%CrI 0.64-6.4) regimen is ranked first in Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS), but without significant differences. For the secondary outcomes, PEG + Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SP/MC) (OR, 4.88e + 11, 95%CrI, 39.56-1.82e + 35) regimen is the best in cecal intubation rate(CIR). PEG + Sim (OR,1.5, 95%CrI, 1.0-2.2) regimen is ranked first in adenoma detection rate(ADR). Senna (OR, 3.23, 95%CrI, 1.04-9.97) and SP/MC (OR, 249.91, 95%CrI, 78.49-958.19) regimens are ranked first in abdominal pain and willingness to repeat, respectively. There is no significant difference in cecal intubation time (CIT), polyp detection rate (PDR), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal bloat. CONCLUSION: PEG + Asc + Sim regimen is more effective at cleaning the bowel. PEG + SP/MC will be helpful to increase CIR. For ADR, PEG + Sim regimen will be more helpful. In addition, PEG + Asc + Sim is the least likely to cause abdominal bloat, while Senna regimen is more likely to cause abdominal pain. Patients prefer to re-use the SP/MC regimen for bowel preparation.

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.

Prospective cohort study to evaluate premedication with simethicone and n-acetilcysteine for upper diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The use of premedication for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is not widely established in western countries. The primary aim of the study was to compare gastric visibility according to the total visibility score (TVS). The secondary aim was to assess complications, diagnostic yield, endoscopic procedure time, sedation dose and patient satisfaction. METHODS: A single center prospective cohort study was performed of consecutive adults undergoing an UGE in the afternoon working shift. After completing enrolment in the control group, patients were administered 200 mg simethicone and 500 mg N-acetylcysteine diluted in 100 ml of water >15 minutes before the procedure. All procedures were recorded and a single, blinded endoscopist evaluated the TVS after recruitment of both cohorts. Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the Spanish translation of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: 205 patients were included in the study, 103 females (50.2%) with a median age of 54.8-years (IQR: 41.2-65.2). 104 were enrolled to the control group and 101 to the intervention group. Patients receiving premedication presented a higher rate of adequate (74.3% vs 45.2; difference 95% CI: 16,3-41,9%, p<0.001) and excellent gastric visibility (23.8% vs 7.7%; difference 95% CI: 6,3-25,8%, p=0.002). Propofol dose was similar, although the median procedure time was lower in the group of no intervention [5 (IQR: 4-7) vs 6 minutes (IQR: 5-7); p=0.03]. Procedure related adverse events were similar, except that patient without premedication experienced more nausea episodes. Major and minor endoscopic findings and the satisfaction questionnaire showed no differences between both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine had a better gastric visibility score, without any increase in adverse events or affecting the patients' satisfaction.

Clinical utility of purgative bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy: a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Optimal bowel preparation before capsule endoscopy (CE) is currently unknown. In this multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial, we assessed clinical effectiveness of 2 types of purgative regimen and a control arm of clear fluid only. METHODS: Patients with suspected small intestinal bleeding were randomized into 3 arms: arm A, clear fluids only for 18 hours before CE and simethicone 200 mg in 150 mL water immediately before CE; arm B, same as A + 2 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) 12 hours before CE; and arm C, same as A + 1 L PEG + sodium ascorbate 3 hours before CE. To assess diagnostic yield, lesions were classified either as highly relevant (P2) or less relevant (P0 or P1) lesions. Small-bowel visualization quality (SBVQ) was assessed using the Brotz score. Patient tolerability was assessed using the visual analog scale (0-10, with lower scores indicating better tolerability). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients completed the study. The mean age was 58.7 years (95% confidence interval, 29.3-87.9), and 47.2% were men. There was no significant difference in diagnosis of P2 lesions in arms A, B, and C (48.7%, 48.0%, and 45.9%, respectively; P = .94). Overall SBVQ and distal SBVQ were similar across the 3 arms (P = .94 and P = .68, respectively). Patients reported better tolerability in arm A (mean score, 1.5) compared with arms B and C (mean score, 3.5 and 2.6, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a purgative bowel preparation before CE does not improve diagnostic yield or small-bowel visualization and is associated with lower patient tolerance. (Clinical trial registration number: ACTRN 12614000883617.).

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

The Efficacy of Simethicone With Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Simethicone (SIM) is a commonly used antifoaming agent in the clinic. However, it has not been clarified whether SIM can improve the quality of intestinal preparation and the detection rates of adenomas (ADR) and polyps (PDR). This systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to mainly evaluate the effect of SIM in bowel preparation for colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic and a manual search of the literature for studies was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science in all published data before February 1, 2020. The primary outcomes were the quality of bowel preparation and the ADR and PDR. All the data were calculated using a pooled estimate of risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, and a random-effect model was used for the calculation. RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials with 7187 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) with SIM improved colon cleansing (P<0.00001), PDR (P=0.006) and the detection rate of lesions in the right colon (P<0.00001) when compared with PEG alone. There was no difference in the ADR (P=0.68), withdrawal time (P=0.06), cecal intubation rate (P=0.98), and cecal intubation time (P=0.65) between 2 groups. The rate of abdominal bloating rate was higher in the PEG group, but there was no significant difference in vomiting (P=0.65), and abdominal pain (P=0.25). CONCLUSIONS: SIM improves the quality of bowel cleanliness and PDR but not ADR. Besides, SIM improves the detection rate of lesions in the right colon and decreased abdominal bloating, but do not affect vomiting and abdominal pain or cramping.

Premedication with reformulated simethicone and sodium bicarbonate improves mucosal visibility during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a double-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The reformulated simethicone emulsion from Berlin Chemical AG might develop white flocculate precipitate covering the gastric mucosa when used before esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We aim to investigate whether combining the reformulated simethicone emulsion with 5% sodium bicarbonate solution could prevent the development of white precipitate and improve visibility during EGD. METHODS: Our clinical study involved 523 patients. They were randomly assigned to two groups. In Group A, patients received a warm solution containing 30 ml 5% sodium bicarbonate solution and 15 ml reformulated simethicone emulsion. In Group B, patients received 45 ml 40 °C lukewarm water. Visibility scores were recorded and analyzed. Flushes, volume of flush water, overall time taken for EGD and complications during or after the procedure were also recorded. RESULTS: We found that no white precipitate was observed during EGD in Group A. Moreover, visibility scores in Group A were significantly lower (P < 0.01). Patients in Group A had fewer flushes (P < 0.01) and smaller volume of flush water (P < 0.01). In addition, the overall time taken for the EGD procedure was significantly shorter in Group A (P < 0.01). The percentage of patients who had no adverse response was significantly higher in Group A than in Group B (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with a mixed solution of 15 ml reformulated simethicone emulsion and 30 ml 5% sodium bicarbonate solution can prevent the development of white precipitate, substantially enhancing mucosal visibility safely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registered name of the trial is "Efficacy of using premedication with reformulated simethicone emulsion during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination". Its Current Controlled Trials number is ChiCTR1900021689. Its date of registration is 11 September 2019. Retrospectively registered, http://www.medresman.org.cn/uc/sindex.aspx .

Two novel protocols for cleaning residual simethicone and fluid in patient-ready duodenoscopes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Approximately 42-95% of working channels have been reported to show the presence of residual fluid despite endoscope reprocessing. The aim of this study was to design two novel protocols for cleaning residual simethicone and demonstrate its efficiency by evaluating the residual fluid and cleanliness in the working channels of patient-ready duodenoscopes. METHODS: The designed protocol for cleaning residual simethicone was implemented in manual cleaning and/or high-level disinfection (HLD). The residual fluid inside the working channels was estimated by visual inspection. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) values were evaluated to determine cleanliness after manual cleaning. RESULTS: Manual cleaning with novel simethicone cleaning protocol demonstrated a significant decrease in fluid droplets (14.6 ± 29.9 vs 0 ± 0, P < 0.001) and ATP values (157 ± 196 relative light units [RLUs] vs 52 ± 41 RLUs, P = 0.031). HLD with simethicone cleaning protocol, using either enzymatic detergent with effective for cleaning simethicone or cleaning time set in the automatic endoscope reprocessor program for 8 min, demonstrated significant decrease in the number of fluid droplets. Follow-up after the implementation of the simethicone cleaning protocol showed a significant decrease in fluid droplets (37.4 ± 41.0 vs 2.1 ± 5.5, P = 0.003) and ATP values (271 ± 268 RLUs vs 82 ± 136 RLUs, P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Simethicone cleaning protocol is advantageous for significantly decreasing fluid droplets and ATP values within endoscope working channels. After manual cleaning with the simethicone cleaning protocol, in particular, no retained fluid droplet was observed in patient-ready duodenoscopes.

A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing simethicone, N-acetylcysteine, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint for visualization in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Early cancer detection is crucial in improving the patients' quality of life and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) plays a key role in this detection. Many clearing mechanisms may be applied to create good endoscopic visualizations for the upper gastrointestinal tract using mucolytic agents, antifoaming agents, proteolytic enzymes and neutralizers. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of simethicone, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), sodium bicarbonate and peppermint as pre-medications for visualization of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). METHODS: This study was a single center prospective randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups. Group A: water; Group B: water with simethicone; Group C: water with simethicone plus NAC 600 mg; Group D: water with simethicone, NAC, sodium bicarbonate and peppermint. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were enrolled and evaluated in this study. Total visibility score (TVS) of Groups A, B, C, and D were 13.4 ± 1.86, 10.5 ± 1.45, 7.15 ± 0.98 and 6.4 ± 1.43, respectively. Group D showed lower TVS than other groups. The procedural durations of Groups C and D were significantly shorter than Group A. The volume of solution for mucosal cleansing of Groups C and D was significantly lower than Groups A and B. CONCLUSIONS: The application of simethicone plus NAC is safe, improves endoscopic visualization and requires a minimal amount of mucosal cleansing solution. The addition of sodium bicarbonate and peppermint further improved visualization for the upper and lower gastric body. Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) with a reference number; TCTR20190501002.

Efficacy of the Combination of Pinaverium Bromide 100 mg Plus Simethicone 300 mg in Abdominal Pain and Bloating in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial.

GOALS: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PB+S (pinaverium bromide 100 mg plus simethicone 300 mg) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). BACKGROUND: IBS is a multifactorial disorder; thus, combination therapy with different mechanisms of action is expected to be useful. PB+S has shown effectiveness in an open-label clinical study in IBS. However, there are no placebo-controlled trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IBS-Rome III patients with abdominal pain/discomfort for at least 2 days within the week prior to baseline assessment were included in this 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of PB+S versus placebo, bid. The primary endpoint was overall symptom improvement, evaluated weekly by the patient (Likert Scale). Secondary endpoints included the weekly improvement in the severity of abdominal pain and bloating assessed both by patients (10-cm Visual Analogue Scale) and investigators (Likert Scale); frequency of Bristol Scale stool types (consistency) evaluated by patients and the IBS Quality of Life scores. RESULTS: A total of 285 patients (female: 83%; 36.5±8.9 y old) received at least 1 dose of PB+S (n=140) or placebo (n=145). No difference was observed in overall symptom improvement between the groups (P=0.13). However, PB+S was superior in abdominal pain (effect size: 31%, P=0.038) and bloating (33%, P=0.019). Patients with IBS-C and IBS-M showed the best improvement in the frequency of stool types with PB+S. No differences were observed in IBS Quality of Life scores and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: PB+S was superior to placebo in improving abdominal pain and bloating in patients with active IBS. The effect on the frequency of stool consistency was particularly significant in IBS-C and IBS-M.

Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Additional simethicone (SIM) can improve adequate bowel preparation and adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, there is no consensus on the optimal dose of SIM. In this study, we compared the adequate bowel preparation rate with supplementation of split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with low-dose SIM (200 mg) versus high-dose SIM (1200 mg). METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded trial involving consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation as assessed by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. RESULTS: Four hundred subjects were randomly allocated to low-dose SIM or high-dose SIM group. Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups (P > 0.05). No significant between-group differences were observed with respect to total bubble scale (BS) (8.49 ± 1.00 vs 8.39 ± 1.10, P = 0.07), total BBPS score (8.70 ± 0.81 vs 8.29 ± 1.18, P = 0.98), ADR (33.68% vs 31.79%, P = 0.69) or withdrawal time (13 [range, 10-16] min vs 13 [10-15] min, P = 0.96). The intubation time in low-dose SIM group was significantly shorter than that in high-dose SIM group (8 (4-16) min vs 10 [6-17] min, P = 0.04). In addition, BS scores as well as diminutive ADR in right colon were superior in the low-dose SIM group (2.68 ± 0.59 vs 2.52 ± 0.73, P = 0.03 and 54.29% vs 30.30%, P = 0.046, respectively). CONCLUSION: Addition of low-dose SIM to split-dose 2 L PEG was as effective as addition of high-dose SIM with respect to adequate bowel preparation, ADR and patient tolerance. However, low-dose SIM was superior with respect to intubation time, right colon BS scores, right colon diminutive ADR and cost savings.

Effectiveness of Mass Drug Administration on Neglected Tropical Diseases in Schoolchildren in Zanzibar, Tanzania.

Soil-transmitted helminths and Schistosoma haematobium affect more than 3 billion people globally and mainly occur in sub-Saharan Africa. The present study assessed the overall infection status of a 1716-student cohort of school-children in Zanzibar and applied mass drug administration (MDA) to the cohort from 2007 to 2009. Schools in Pemba, Zanzibar, had a much higher prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infections than those in Unguja, and the Chaani, Ghana, and Machui schools of Unguja exhibited high S. haematobium infection rates. The MDA program only partially controlled parasite infections, owing to high rates of re-infection. The infection rate of S. haematobium across all 10 schools, for example, was only reduced by 1.8%, and even this change not significant, even though the S. haematobiuminfection rates of the Chaani and Mzambarauni schools were significantly reduced from 64.4 and 23.4%, respectively, at the first screening, to 7.3 and 2.3% at the last screening. The overall infection rate of Ascaris lumbricoides was reduced from 36.0% at the first screening to 22.6% at the last screening. However, the infection rates for both Trichuris trichiuraand hookworm were generally unaffected by MDA. In the future, parasite control programs should involve strategically designed MDA schedules and holistic intervention (e.g., sanitation improvement, hygiene behavior changes, and control of intermediated hosts).

Simethicone is retained in endoscopes despite reprocessing: impact of its use on working channel fluid retention and adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence values (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies from our group and others demonstrate residual fluid in 42% to 95% of endoscope working channels despite high-level disinfection and drying. Additionally, persistent simethicone has been reported in endoscope channels despite reprocessing. METHODS: Endoscopy was performed by using water or varied simethicone concentrations (0.5%, 1%, 3%) for flushing. After high-level disinfection/drying, we inspected endoscope working channels for retained fluid by using the SteriCam borescope. Working channel rinsates were evaluated for adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy was performed on fluid droplets gathered from a colonoscope in which low-concentration simethicone was used. RESULTS: Use of medium/high concentrations of simethicone resulted in a higher mean number of fluid droplets (13.5/17.3 droplets, respectively) and ATP bioluminescence values (20.6/23 relative light units [RLUs], respectively) compared with that of procedures using only water (6.3 droplets/10.9 RLUs; P < .001). Two automated endoscope reprocessing cycles resulted in return of a fluid droplet and ATP bioluminescence values to ranges similar to that of procedures that used only water (P = .56). Low-concentration simethicone did not increase the mean residual fluid or ATP bioluminescence values compared with procedures that used only water (5.8 droplets/15.6 RLUs). Fourier transform infrared analysis revealed simethicone in the endoscope working channel after use of low-concentration simethicone. CONCLUSIONS: Use of medium/high concentrations of simethicone is associated with retention of increased fluid droplets and higher ATP bioluminescence values in endoscope working channels, compared with endoscopes in which water or low concentration simethicone was used. However, simethicone is detectable in endoscopes despite reprocessing, even when it is utilized in low concentrations. Our data suggest that when simethicone is used, it should be used in the lowest concentration possible. Facilities may consider 2 automated endoscope reprocessor cycles for reprocessing of endoscopes when simethicone has been used.

The role of oral simethicone on the adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators of screening colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time. RESULTS: No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P = .881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P = .373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤ .05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤ .05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa = .537; P < .05; BBPS score kappa = .184; P <.05). CONCLUSION: Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.).