Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundColonic motility in constipation can be assessed non-invasively using MRI.ObjectiveTo compare MRI with high-resolution colonic manometry (HRCM) for predicting treatment response.DesignPart 1: 44 healthy volunteers (HVs), 43 patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and 37 with functional constipation (FC) completed stool diaries and questionnaires and underwent oral macrogol (500–1000 mL) challenge. Whole gut transit time (WGTT), segmental colonic volumes (CV), MRI-derived Motility Index and chyme movement by ‘tagging’ were assessed using MRI and time to defecation after macrogol recorded. Left colonic HRCM was recorded before and after a 700 kcal meal. Patients then proceeded to Part 2: a randomised cross-over study of 10-days bisacodyl 10 mg daily versus hyoscine 20 mg three times per day, assessing daily pain and constipation.ResultsPart 1: Total CVs median (range) were significantly greater in IBS-C (776 (595–1033)) and FC (802 (633–951)) vs HV (645 (467–780)), p<0.001. Patients also had longer WGTT and delayed evacuation after macrogol. IBS-C patients showed significantly reduced tagging index and less propagated pressure wave (PPW) activity during HRCM versus HV. Compared with FC, IBS-C patients were more anxious and reported more pain. Abnormally large colons predicted significantly delayed evacuation after macrogol challenge (p<0.02), impaired manometric meal response and reduced pain with bisacodyl (p<0.05).Part 2: Bisacodyl compared with hyoscine increased bowel movements but caused more pain in both groups (p<0.03).ConclusionAn abnormally large colon is an important feature in constipation which predicts impaired manometric response to feeding and treatment responses. HRCM shows that IBS-C patients have reduced PPW activity.Trial registration numberThe study was preregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov, Reference: NCT03226145.

Bowel cleanliness has been shown to be superior with split-dose vs nonsplit preparations; we aimed to directly assess the poorly characterized comparative efficacies of split-dose vs same-day polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens. In this study, one of a series of randomized trials performed across 10 Canadian endoscopy units, patients undergoing colonoscopies between 10:30 and 16:30 were allocated to PEG low-volume same-day (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 2 L the morning of the procedure), low-volume split-dose (15 mg bisacodyl the day before, 1 L + 1 L), or high-volume split-dose (2 L + 2 L). Coprimary endpoints were adequate bowel cleansing based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale using in turn different threshold cutoffs. Overall, 1,750 subjects were randomized equally across the 3 groups, with no differences in adequate bowel cleanliness rates (low-volume same-day, 90.5%; high-volume split-dose, 92.2%; P = 0.34; and low-volume split-dose, 87.9%; P = 0.17) for the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥6 and 2 for each segment. Willingness to repeat the preparation was not significantly different between low-volume same-day (91.0%) and low-volume split-dose (92.5%; P = 0.40) but was greater than the high-volume split-dose (68.9%; P < 0.01). No significant differences were noted for withdrawal time, cecal intubation, or polyp detection rates. In this large randomized trial of PEG regimens, low-volume same-day resulted in similar bowel cleanliness compared with high-volume or low-volume split-dosing. Willingness to repeat and tolerability were superior with low-volume same-day compared with high-volume split-dose and similar to low-volume split-dose.

Inadequate bowel cleansing is a major burden for endoscopy units. The aim of this study was to compare two intensive bowel cleansing regimens in patients with previous colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation. Patients with inadequate cleansing at index colonoscopy were randomized to 4-L split-dose polyethylene-glycol (PEG) regimen vs. 2-L split-dose PEG plus ascorbic acid (PEG+Asc) regimen. All individuals underwent a 3-day low-residue diet and received 10 mg of bisacodyl, the day before colonoscopy. Cleansing was considered to be adequate if the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scored ≥2 at each colonic segment. A non-inferiority analysis was performed to demonstrate that colonic cleansing with 2-L PEG+Asc was not inferior to 4-l PEG, considering a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Adequate bowel cleansing was significantly higher in patients assigned to 4-L PEG regimen (n=127) vs. those randomized to 2-L PEG+Asc regimen (n=129) by intention-to-treat analysis (81.1 vs. 67.4%, odds ratio (OR) 2.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.163-3.689)) and by per-protocol analysis (86.6 vs. 71.7%, OR: 2.55, 95% CI: (1.316-4.922)). The study was terminated for futility after the interim analysis, because the 95% CI of the difference of proportions was 3.13-24.27% in the intention-to-treat analysis and 3.33-26.47% in the per-protocol analysis, confirming the superiority of 4-L PEG preparation. After 3-day low-residue diet and oral bisacodyl before colonoscopy, colon cleansing with 4-L split-dose PEG was superior to 2-L split-dose PEG+Asc in patients with previous inadequate cleansing. (EUDRACT: 2013-002506-31, NCT02073552).

Optimal bowel preparation is vital for the efficacy and safety of colonoscopy. The inconvenience, discomfort, required consumption of large volumes of product, and potential adverse effects associated with some bowel preparations deter patients from colonoscopy and may provide inadequate cleansing. A dual-action, non-phosphate, natural orange-flavored, low-volume preparation containing sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (P/MC) is currently being reviewed for bowel cleansing. This was a phase 3, randomized, multicenter, assessor-blinded, prespecified non-inferiority, head-to-head study to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of day-before administration of P/MC vs. 2L polyethylene glycol solution and two 5-mg bisacodyl tablets (2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets (HalfLytely and Bisacodyl Tablets Bowel Prep Kit)) in adult patients preparing for colonoscopy (SEE CLEAR II Study). The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of P/MC to 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets in overall colon cleansing using a modified Aronchick scale. In addition, efficacy in the ascending, mid (transverse and descending), and recto-sigmoid segments of colon was evaluated using a modified Ottawa scale. Patient acceptability and tolerability of the bowel preparations were assessed via a standard questionnaire. Safety was assessed based on the monitoring of adverse events (AEs) and meaningful findings on clinical evaluations including physical examinations, vital sign measurements, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). A total of 603 patients were randomized to receive either P/MC (n = 300) or 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets (n = 303). Based on the Aronchick scale, successful overall cleansing was similar in patients receiving P/MC (83.0%) and patients receiving 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets (79.7%). P/MC demonstrated non-inferiority to 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets in overall cleansing of the colon, as measured by the Aronchick scale. Similarly, the efficacy of P/MC, as measured by the Ottawa scale, was non-inferior to 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets in cleansing the ascending, mid, and recto-sigmoid segments of the colon. Patient-reported acceptability and tolerability for each item examined on the questionnaire was significantly greater for P/MC compared with 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets (P<0.0001).Treatment-emergent AEs related to the bowel preparation reported by 1% of patients receiving P/MC or 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets were nausea (3.0% vs. 4.3%), vomiting (1.4% vs. 2.0%), and headache (2.7% vs. 1.7%). No clinically meaningful changes were noted in either treatment arm in data collected from physical examinations, vital sign measurements, and ECGs. When administered as a day-before dose, the bowel cleansing effects of P/MC were non-inferior compared with 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets using the clinician-rated Aronchick and Ottawa scales. Treatment acceptability was significantly more favorable in patients receiving P/MC than in patients receiving 2L PEG-3350 and bisacodyl tablets.

Bristol stool form 1 and 2 is an important predictor of inadequate bowel preparation. To evaluate the efficacy of supplemental preparation in bowel cleansing quality among patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2, as well as the feasibility of tailored bowel preparation guided by Bristol stool form scale. Patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2 from 3 Chinese tertiary hospitals randomly received either 2 L PEG-ELP (group A) or 10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP (group B); patients with Bristol stool form 3 to 7 received 2 L PEG-ELP (group C) for bowel preparation. The primary endpoint is the rate of adequate bowel reparation for the whole colon. The adequate bowel preparation rate for separate colon segments, the polyp detection rate (PDR), tolerability, acceptability, sleeping quality and compliance were evaluated as secondary endpoints. 700 patients were randomized. In per-protocol analysis, patients in group B attained significantly higher successful preparation rate than group A (88.7% vs. 61.2%, p<0.001) and similar with group C (88.7% vs. 85.0%, p = 0.316). The PDR in group B was significantly higher than group A (43.2% vs. 25.7%, p<0.001). Acceptability was much higher in group B and C. 10 mg bisacodyl plus 2 L PEG-ELP can significantly improve both bowel preparation quality and PDR in patients with Bristol stool form 1 and 2. Bristol stool form scale may be an easy and efficient guide for tailored bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Bowel cleansing is essential for a successful colonoscopy, but the ideal clearing agent and the volume have yet to be determined. A small-volume cleanser is important for patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the bowel cleansing efficacy, safety, tolerability, and acceptability of a 300-mL small-volume sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PSMC) preparation-Bowklean with one 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)/bisacodyl-Klean-Prep/Dulcolax preparation under identical dietary recommendations. This multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, pre-specified noninferiority study enrolled 631 outpatients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy (Bowklean = 316 and Klean-Prep/Dulcolax = 315). After bowel preparation, an independent evaluator blinded to the subject’s treatment allocation rated the quality of the colon cleansing. Efficacy was evaluated using the Aronchick Scale and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OPBS). Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events. Tolerability and acceptability were measured via a patient questionnaire. Bowklean was non-interior to Klean-Prep/Dulcolax in overall colon cleansing but was associated with significantly better preparation quality. Notably, Bowklean was associated with significantly greater tolerability and acceptability of bowel preparations than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Safety profiles did not differ significantly between the groups. Our data indicate that Bowklean is a more effective and better-tolerated bowel cleansing preparation before colonoscopy than Klean-Prep/Dulcolax. Bowklean may therefore increase positive attitudes toward colonoscopies and participation rates.

Two liters of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution administered with ascorbic acid (Asc) can provide efficacy similar to that of a 4-L PEG solution for colonoscopy preparation. In addition, oral bisacodyl (Bis) has been shown to reduce the volume of PEG needed for a bowel preparation with comparable efficacy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a 2-L PEG solution mixed with Asc versus the combination of Bis, Asc and a 1-L PEG solution. This was a prospective, randomized, multi-centre, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Participants who were scheduled for colonoscopy were included and randomized to receive either 2-L PEG and Asc (2L PEG/Asc group) or 1-L PEG, Asc and 20 mg Bis (1L PEG/Asc + Bis group). The quality of bowel preparation was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Data regarding tolerance, compliance and adverse events were also gathered. A total of 187 participants were analyzed; 96 were allocated to the 2L PEG/Asc group and 91 to the 1L PEG/Asc + Bis group. Bowel preparation was adequate in 87.5% (84/96) of patients in the 2L PEG/Asc group and 94.5% of the 1L PEG/Asc + Bis group (86/91, p = 0.10). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to compliance, tolerability or safety. The patients allocated to the 1L PEG/Asc + Bis group expressed more willingness to repeat the procedure than patients in the 2L PEG/Asc group (p = 0.01). Bowel preparation with Bis and a 1-L PEG/Asc solution is as effective, well-tolerated, and safe as a 2-L PEG/Asc solution. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 01745835; Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) KCT0000708.

Low-volume preparations are gaining attention for higher acceptability but have been never evaluated in IBD. We compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a 2-L PEG with a 4-L PEG solution in patients with ulcerative colitis.MethodsThis is a multicenter, randomized, single-blind study. Adult outpatients with ulcerative colitis undergoing colonoscopy received either 2-L PEG plus bisacodyl or 4-L PEG. Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa Scale and rated as adequate if the score was ≤2 in each colon segment. Patient acceptance, satisfaction, and related symptoms were recorded.ResultsPreparation was adequate in 80% of the 211 patients without any differences between groups. Mean Ottawa scores for whole and right colon were similar in the 2 groups. As concern tolerability, 83% patients in 2-L PEG arm and 44.8% in 4-L PEG arm reported no or mild discomfort (P < 0.0001) and 94.3% and 61.9% expressed their willingness to repeat the preparation (P < 0.001). Palatability was better with 2-L PEG, whereas related symptoms occurred more frequently with 4-L PEG. Regardless of preparation, split dosage was associated with better cleansing. Further predictors of poor cleansing were moderate/severe discomfort during preparation and more than 6 hours between end of preparation and colonoscopy. Extension and severity of colitis did not influence quality of preparation.ConclusionsLow-volume PEG is not inferior to 4-L PEG for bowel cleansing in ulcerative colitis, but it is better tolerated and accepted. The time interval from solution intake and colonoscopy is the most important factor affecting quality of cleansing in ulcerative colitis.

This study examined whether Pico-Salax alone or Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl tablets for two nights before colonoscopy afford superior efficacy, patient tolerance, and safety compared with oral sodium phosphate. Patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to receive either Pico-Salax at 5 and 10 PM the night before colonoscopy plus bisacodyl 10 mg at 5 PM in the two earlier evenings (n=105), Pico-Salax alone at 5 and 10 PM the night before colonoscopy (n=109), or oral sodium phosphate at 5 and 10 PM the night (n=101) before colonoscopy. All groups were encouraged to drink 3-4 l of Gatorade or other clear fluids the night before the colonoscopy. Global scoring of cleansing efficacy using the Ottawa scale did not reveal differences among groups, but Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl was superior in cleansing the right colon compared with the other regimens (P=0.003), providing almost 50% improvement over oral sodium phosphate. Patient tolerance of Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl did not differ from Pico-Salax alone but was much better than oral sodium phosphate (P<0.0001). Hemodynamic and biochemical monitoring of patients on Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl suggests this regimen has a very strong safety profile. It does not differ from Pico-Salax alone, which lacks the hyperphosphatemia and hypocalcemia associated with oral sodium phosphate. Together, these data suggest that Pico-Salax plus bisacodyl provides enhanced colon cleansing in the right colon compared with Pico-Salax alone or oral sodium phosphate, but this finding does not compromise the much greater tolerability or the safety profile of Pico-Salax alone.

The safety and efficacy of NaP tablets have not been compared with 2L PEG lavage solution. A multicenter, investigator-blinded study was conducted to compare the colon-cleansing efficacy of a new NaP tablet formulation with that of 2L PEG solution plus bisacodyl tablets in adults undergoing colonoscopy. A total of 481 patients were randomized to receive either 32 tablets (48 g) of NaP or 2L PEG solution plus 4 (20 mg) bisacodyl tablets. Quality of colon cleansing was assessed using a 4-point scale (1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, and 4 = inadequate), and the primary efficacy end point was mean overall colon-cleansing score. Safety assessments included recording of adverse events and changes in biochemical tests and vital signs. A total of 411 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. The mean overall and ascending colon-cleansing scores for NaP tablets were significantly better than PEG plus bisacodyl (overall 1.5 vs 1.8, ascending 1.4 vs 1.8, P < 0.0001 for both). Patients treated with NaP tablets experienced significantly fewer adverse events (66%vs 82%, P= 0.0003) and gastrointestinal symptoms (64%vs 79%, P= 0.0001) compared with patients receiving PEG plus bisacodyl. Patients receiving NaP tablets were significantly less likely to experience abdominal distention, abdominal pain, and vomiting than patients receiving PEG plus bisacodyl (P < 0.0012). Transient fluctuations in laboratory parameters were observed in both treatment groups; however, the fluctuations were more common and of greater magnitude in the NaP group particularly in phosphorous, sodium, and potassium. The colon-cleansing efficacy of the new 32-tablet NaP dosing regimen in this study was found to be significantly better than the 2L PEG solution plus bisacodyl tablets regimen. The 32-tablet NaP dosing regimen was associated with fewer adverse events. As expected electrolyte shifts were more common and of greater magnitude in the NaP group compared with the PEG plus bisacodyl group; however, both treatment groups demonstrated significant changes in electrolytes and creatinine.