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

Jack A Di Palma, Raj Bhandari, Mark vB Cleveland, Daniel S Mishkin, Jessica Tesoriero, Sue Hall, John McGowan, Jack A Di Palma, Raj Bhandari, Mark vB Cleveland, Daniel S Mishkin, Jessica Tesoriero, Sue Hall, John McGowan

Abstract

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.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03404401.

Conflict of interest statement

Guarantor of article: Jack A. Di Palma, MD, MACG.

Specific author contributions: J.A.D.P.—planning, conducting, monitoring, analysis, and writing of report, R.B. and D.S.M.—study participants, collecting data, and reviewing manuscript. M.vB.C., S.H., J.T., and J.M.—planning, collection of data, analysis, writing, and review of manuscript. Each author has approved the final draft.

Financial support: Braintree Laboratories, part of Sebela Phamaceuticals, Inc.

Potential competing interests: J.A.D.P. is a consultant medical director of Braintree Laboratories. M.vB.C. is a scientific consultant for Braintree Laboratories. S.H., J.T., and J.M. are employees of Braintree Laboratories, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram.

References

    1. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2017;153(1):307–23.
    1. Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, et al. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology 1980;78(5 pt 1):991–5.
    1. Fordtran JS, Santa Ana CA, Cleveland MVB. A sulfate-free gastrointestinal lavage. Gastroenterology 1990;98:11–6.
    1. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: Recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2014;147(4):903–24.
    1. Di Palma JA, Rodriguez R, McGowan J, et al. A randomized clinical study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new, reduced-volume, oral sulfate colon-cleansing preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:2275–84.
    1. DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J, et al. ; NOCT Study Group. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: A randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87(3):677–87.
    1. Walker ML, Pelham RW, Hague KM, et al. An evaluation of water and electrolyte shifts in subjects taking ascorbate and peg hypertonic bowel preparation. In. Proceedings from Digestive Disease Week;May 18–21, 2019; San Diego, CA. Abstract Mo1035.
    1. Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: An underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16(11):3389–96.
    1. United States Food and Drug Administration. Information for healthcare professionals: Oral sodium phosphate (OSP) products for bowel cleansing (marketed as Visicol and OsmoPrep, and oral sodium phosphate products available without a prescription). () (2008). Accessed December 11, 2008.
    1. Khashab M, Rex DK. Efficacy and tolerability of a new formulation of sodium phosphate tablets (INKP-101), and a reduced sodium phosphate dose, in colon cleansing: A single-center open-label pilot trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;21(4):465–8.
    1. Anastassopoulos K, Farraye FA, Knight T, et al. A comparative study of treatment-emergent adverse events following use of common bowel preparations among a colonoscopy screening population: Results from a post-marketing observational study. Dig Dis Sci 2016;61(10):2993–3006.
    1. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362(19):1795–803.
    1. Rex DK, Katz PO, Bertiger G, et al. Split-dose administration of a dual-action, low-volume bowel cleanser for colonoscopy: The SEE CLEAR I study. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78(1):132–41.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi