Cargando…

A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy

INTRODUCTION: A new tablet-based bowel prep for colonoscopy has been developed containing poorly absorbed sulfate salts which act to retain water within the intestinal lumen resulting in a copious diarrhea, thereby cleansing the bowel. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of these oral sulfa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Di Palma, Jack A., Bhandari, Raj, Cleveland, Mark vB., Mishkin, Daniel S., Tesoriero, Jessica, Hall, Sue, McGowan, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7864663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33165006
http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001020
_version_ 1783647697016717312
author Di Palma, Jack A.
Bhandari, Raj
Cleveland, Mark vB.
Mishkin, Daniel S.
Tesoriero, Jessica
Hall, Sue
McGowan, John
author_facet Di Palma, Jack A.
Bhandari, Raj
Cleveland, Mark vB.
Mishkin, Daniel S.
Tesoriero, Jessica
Hall, Sue
McGowan, John
author_sort Di Palma, Jack A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: A new tablet-based bowel prep for colonoscopy has been developed containing poorly absorbed sulfate salts which act to retain water within the intestinal lumen resulting in a copious diarrhea, thereby cleansing the bowel. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of these oral sulfate tablets (OST) compared with a US FDA–approved bowel prep solution containing PEG3350, electrolytes, and ascorbate (polyethylene glycol and ascorbate [PEG-EA]). METHODS: Five hundred fifteen adult patients (mean 57y) were enrolled in this single-blind, multicenter, noninferiority study. Subjects were assigned either PEG-EA or OST to be administered in a split-dose regimen starting the evening before colonoscopy. PEG-EA was taken according to its approved labeling (1 L of prep solution with 16 oz. of additional water) in the evening and again in the morning. OST patients took a total of 24 tablets. OST patients were administered 12 tablets in the evening, and the following morning. Patients consumed 16 ounces of water with each dose of 12 tablets and drank an additional 32 oz. of water with each dose. Colonoscopies were performed by blinded investigators. Cleansing efficacy was evaluated globally and segmentally using a 4-point scale (Excellent—no more than small bits of feces/fluid which can be suctioned easily; achieves clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Good—feces and fluid requiring washing and suctioning, but still achieves clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Fair—enough feces even after washing and suctioning to prevent clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Poor—large amounts of fecal residue and additional bowel preparation required). Scores of Good or Excellent were considered to be a success. Safety was assessed by spontaneously reported adverse events, solicited ratings of expected prep symptoms, and laboratory testing. RESULTS: A high rate of cleansing success was seen with OST (92%), which was noninferior to PEG-EA (89%). Only a small proportion of subjects rated their expected gastrointestinal symptoms as severe (<5% for both preps). No clinically significant differences were seen between preps for chemistry and hematology parameters. No serious adverse experiences were reported with OST. DISCUSSION: Sulfate tablets achieved a high level of cleansing in the study, comparable with US FDA–approved preps. OST was noninferior to PEG-EA in this study and achieved significantly more Excellent preps overall and in the proximal colon. The OST prep was well-tolerated, with a similar rate of spontaneously reported adverse experiences to PEG-EA and a low rate of severe expected gastrointestinal symptoms.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7864663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78646632021-02-11 A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy Di Palma, Jack A. Bhandari, Raj Cleveland, Mark vB. Mishkin, Daniel S. Tesoriero, Jessica Hall, Sue McGowan, John Am J Gastroenterol Article INTRODUCTION: A new tablet-based bowel prep for colonoscopy has been developed containing poorly absorbed sulfate salts which act to retain water within the intestinal lumen resulting in a copious diarrhea, thereby cleansing the bowel. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of these oral sulfate tablets (OST) compared with a US FDA–approved bowel prep solution containing PEG3350, electrolytes, and ascorbate (polyethylene glycol and ascorbate [PEG-EA]). METHODS: Five hundred fifteen adult patients (mean 57y) were enrolled in this single-blind, multicenter, noninferiority study. Subjects were assigned either PEG-EA or OST to be administered in a split-dose regimen starting the evening before colonoscopy. PEG-EA was taken according to its approved labeling (1 L of prep solution with 16 oz. of additional water) in the evening and again in the morning. OST patients took a total of 24 tablets. OST patients were administered 12 tablets in the evening, and the following morning. Patients consumed 16 ounces of water with each dose of 12 tablets and drank an additional 32 oz. of water with each dose. Colonoscopies were performed by blinded investigators. Cleansing efficacy was evaluated globally and segmentally using a 4-point scale (Excellent—no more than small bits of feces/fluid which can be suctioned easily; achieves clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Good—feces and fluid requiring washing and suctioning, but still achieves clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Fair—enough feces even after washing and suctioning to prevent clear visualization of the entire colonic mucosa. Poor—large amounts of fecal residue and additional bowel preparation required). Scores of Good or Excellent were considered to be a success. Safety was assessed by spontaneously reported adverse events, solicited ratings of expected prep symptoms, and laboratory testing. RESULTS: A high rate of cleansing success was seen with OST (92%), which was noninferior to PEG-EA (89%). Only a small proportion of subjects rated their expected gastrointestinal symptoms as severe (<5% for both preps). No clinically significant differences were seen between preps for chemistry and hematology parameters. No serious adverse experiences were reported with OST. DISCUSSION: Sulfate tablets achieved a high level of cleansing in the study, comparable with US FDA–approved preps. OST was noninferior to PEG-EA in this study and achieved significantly more Excellent preps overall and in the proximal colon. The OST prep was well-tolerated, with a similar rate of spontaneously reported adverse experiences to PEG-EA and a low rate of severe expected gastrointestinal symptoms. Wolters Kluwer 2021-02 2020-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7864663/ /pubmed/33165006 http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001020 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Article
Di Palma, Jack A.
Bhandari, Raj
Cleveland, Mark vB.
Mishkin, Daniel S.
Tesoriero, Jessica
Hall, Sue
McGowan, John
A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy
title A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy
title_full A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy
title_fullStr A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy
title_full_unstemmed A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy
title_short A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of a New Sulfate-Based Tablet Bowel Preparation Versus a PEG and Ascorbate Comparator in Adult Subjects Undergoing Colonoscopy
title_sort safety and efficacy comparison of a new sulfate-based tablet bowel preparation versus a peg and ascorbate comparator in adult subjects undergoing colonoscopy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7864663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33165006
http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001020
work_keys_str_mv AT dipalmajacka asafetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT bhandariraj asafetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT clevelandmarkvb asafetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT mishkindaniels asafetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT tesorierojessica asafetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT hallsue asafetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT mcgowanjohn asafetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT dipalmajacka safetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT bhandariraj safetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT clevelandmarkvb safetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT mishkindaniels safetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT tesorierojessica safetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT hallsue safetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy
AT mcgowanjohn safetyandefficacycomparisonofanewsulfatebasedtabletbowelpreparationversusapegandascorbatecomparatorinadultsubjectsundergoingcolonoscopy