Assessment of Bowel Preparation Using Low-Volume Sulphate-Based Preparations in Comparison with Macrogols: A Multicenter, Randomized, Comparative Clinical Study of the 3rd Phase

Oral sulphate solution (OSS: sodium sulphate, potassium sulphate and magnesium sulphate) is a low-volume osmotic agent for cleansing the intestines.

Aim: in a multicentre, prospective, randomized, 3rd phase study with two parallel groups, the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of OSS was evaluated in comparison with Macrogol 4000 with electrolytes (a reference preparation for bowel cleansing in Russia) in adult patients who were scheduled for routine diagnostic colonoscopy.

Methods. This study was conducted in three Russian research centres during the March–December, 2015 period. Men and women over the age of 18 scheduled to undergo routine diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly assigned either to the OSS group or to the Macrogol group with a fractional use mode before the colonoscopy. The colonoscopy researchers were not aware of which preparation had been taken by the patients. Anonymized video records were centrally analysed by three experts. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a successful bowel preparation for colonoscopy ≥6 points, as determined by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of quality assessment (BBPS scale).

Results. 296 patients were randomized in the study (147 patients were treated with OSS, 149 patients received Macrogol); 294 participants were included in the Intention to Treat population (ITT-population), and 274 participants were included in the population of patients who completed the study according to the protocol (Per-Protocol; PP-population) (139 patients received OSS, 135 patients received Macrogol). The proportion of patients with a successful bowel preparation (BBPS ≥6 scores) was high in both groups (OSS [PP-population]: 97.2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 89.5–99.3), Macrogol [PP-population]: 97.7 % (95 % CI: 90.7–99.4)). The corrected difference between the groups was -0.5 % (95 % CI: -4.2–3.3), thereby demonstrating “no less effective” of OSS as compared to Macrogol. Compliance with the drug use regime was higher in the OSS group than in the Macrogol group (95.7 % versus 82.3 %, respectively, p-value = 0.0011, ITT-population).

The most common symptom reported in patients was nausea (27.9 % in the OSS group and 12.9 % in the Macrogol group). The proportion of patients who developed nausea was significantly higher in the OSS group than in the Macrogol group (25.2 % compared with 10.2 % when taking the first dose of the preparation (p = 0.0008) and 19.7 % compared with 6.8 % when taking the second dose of the preparation (p = 0.0016)). Differences in other symptoms (bloating, abdominal pain or abdominal discomfort) between the groups were not significant, with the severity of symptoms being generally mild. The safety profile of the investigated preparations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in remission did not differ from that in the general patient population.

The differences in terms of secondary endpoints were not identified, including BBPS assessment for different sections of the colon, the level of polyp detection, the duration and completeness of colonoscopy, and the investigator’s satisfaction with the procedure. The analysis by subgroups also did not reveal any significant differences.

Conclusion. In this study, the “not less effectiveness” of the sulphate solution was demonstrated as compared to Macrogol in a fractional use mode. Both preparations were well tolerated. Despite the higher incidence of nausea in the OSS group, the patients showed significantly higher compliance with the OSS mode as compared to that of Macrogol.

This study is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry of Clinical Trials, No. NCT02321462.

1. Rembacken B., Hassan C., Riemann J.F. et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy. 2012;44(10):957–68.

2. Froehlich F., Wietlisbach V., Gonvers J.J. et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(3):378–84.

3. Harewood G.C., Sharma V.K., de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(1):76–9.

4. Johnson D.A., Barkun A.N., Cohen L.B. et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(10):1528–45.

5. Enestvedt B.K., Tofani C., Laine L.A. et al. 4-Liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1225–31.

6. Belsey J., Epstein O., Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;25(4):373–84.

7. Kilgore T.W., Abdinoor A.A., Szary N.M. et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1240–5.

8. DiPalma J.A., Wolff B.G., Meagher A., Cleveland M.V. Comparison of reduced volume versus four liters sulfatefree electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(10):2187–91.

9. Clark R.E., Godfrey J.D., Choudhary A. et al. Lowvolume polyethylene glycol and bisacodyl for bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy: a meta-analysis. Ann Gastroenterol. 2013;26(4):319–24.

10. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee,Saltzman J.R., Cash B.D., Pasha S.F., Early D.S. et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(4):781–94.

11. Full Prescribing Information for SUPREP Bowel Prep Kit (sodium sulfate, potassium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate) Oral Solution. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=BasicSearch.process

12. Summary of Product Characteristics for Izinova. http://base-donnees-publique.medicaments.gouv.fr/affichageDoc.php?specid=65236258&typedoc=R

13. Instruction on the use of the medicinal preparation FORTRANS® (In Rus.) https://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/Grls_View_v2.aspx?routingGuid=ac0cf5d3-890c-4108-90c0-a618b6990286&t=5efc1be3-fb57-4e2f-913e-9701edfb0d5d

14. Lai E.J., Calderwood A.H., Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 2):620–5.

15. Wang H.S., Lin J.K. A randomized prospective trial of bowel preparation for colonoscopy with Fortrans compared with Bisacodyl. J Chin Med Assoc. 2003;66(6):364–9.

16. Sharma V.K., Chockalingham S.K., Ugheoke E.A. et al. Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the use of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in fourliter versus two-liter volumes and pretreatment with either magnesium citrate or bisacodyl for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47(2):167–71.

17. Di Palma J.A., 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(9):2275–84.

18. Hassan C., Bretthauer M., Kaminski M.F. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):142–50.

19. Kaminski M., homas-Gibson S., Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy. 2017;49(4):378–97.

20. Rex D.K., Di Palma J.A., Rodriguez R. et al. A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulphate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(2):328–36.

21. Yang H.J., Park S.K., Kim J.H. et al. Randomized trial comparing oral sulfate solution with 4-L polyethylene glycol administered in a split dose as preparation for colonoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;32(1):12–8.

22. Rex D.K., DiPalma J.A., McGowan J., Cleveland M.V. A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(6):1113–23.

23. Jeong S., Lee S.G., Kim Y. et al. Differences in clinical chemistry values according to the use of two laxatives for colonoscopy. Clin Biochem. 2014;47(12):1047–51.

24. Lee K.J., Park H.J., Kim H.S. et al. Electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled multicenter trial. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(10):3041–8.

25. Anastassopoulos K., Farraye F.A., 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. Digest Dis Sci. 2016;61:2993–3006.