Residue-free sodium phosphate tablets (OsmoPrep) versus Visicol for colon cleansing: a randomized, investigator-blinded trial

被引:25
作者
Wruble, Lawrence
DeMicco, Michael
Medoff, Jeffrey
Safdi, Alan
Bernstein, Jeffrey
Dalke, Douglas
Rose, Martin
Karlstadt, Robyn G.
Ettinger, Nancy
Zhang, Bing
机构
[1] Memphis Gastroenterol Grp, Humphreys Ctr 80, Memphis, TN 38120 USA
[2] Associated Gastroenterol Med Grp, Anaheim, CA USA
[3] Vital Res, Greensboro, NC USA
[4] Consultants Clin Res, Cincinnati, OH USA
[5] Maryland Digest Dis Res, Laurel, MD USA
[6] Gastroenterol Specialties PC, Lincoln, NE USA
[7] InKine Pharmaceut Co Inc, Morrisville, NC USA
[8] MacroStat Comp Inc, Hockessin, DE USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.047
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The bowel purgative Visicol contains microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) residue, which may impair full visibility during a colonoscopy. An MCC residue-free sodium phosphate (RF-NaP; OsmoPrep) tablet was developed. Objective: To investigate appropriate RF-NaP dosing. Design: Phase 2, randomized, investigator-blinded study. Setting: Six research centers in the United States. Patients and Interventions: Patients undergoing a colonoscopy received Visicol (n = 34) or 1 of 6 RF-NaP regimens administered as either split (S) dosing (the evening before and the day of colonoscopy) or evening-only (E) dosing. Dosing regimens for RF-NaP were 40 tablets S, 3 every 15 minutes (n = 33); 40 tablets S, 4 every 15 minutes (n = 34); 32 tablets E, 4 every 15 minutes (n = 34); 32 tablets S, 4 every 15 minutes (n = 36); 28 tablets E, 4 every 15 minutes (n = 34); 28 tablets S, 4 every 15 minutes (n = 34). Visicol was administered as 40 tablets S, 3 every 15 minutes. Main Outcome Measure: Overall colon cleansing (OCC) was assessed by a physician questionnaire (4-point scale, based on colonic contents). An OCC rating of "excellent" or "good" was considered a response. Safety measures were also monitored. Results: Split dosing with RF-NaP was associated with high OCC and achieved response rates of 90%, 97%, and 100% for 28, 32, and 40 tablets, respectively, compared with 86% for Visicol. In addition, RF-NaP evening-only regimen response rates were 90% (32 tablets) and 72% (28 tablets). Transient shifts in electrolyte levels were reduced, and GI adverse events were less common with lower RF-NaP dose regimens. Conclusions: Administration of RF-NaP retains the benefits of a tablet purgative but eliminates MCC issues. Split dosing and 32-tablet evening-only dosing of RF-NaP tablets were efficacious and well tolerated, and split dosing of RF-NaP tablets is recommended.
引用
收藏
页码:660 / 670
页数:11
相关论文
共 18 条
[1]   PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING A NEW SODIUM PHOSPHATE-BISACODYL REGIMEN WITH CONVENTIONAL PEG-ES LAVAGE FOR OUTPATIENT COLONOSCOPY PREPARATION [J].
AFRIDI, SA ;
BARTHEL, JS ;
KING, PD ;
PINEDA, JJ ;
MARSHALL, JB .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1995, 41 (05) :485-489
[2]  
Aronchick C., 1999, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V94, P2667
[3]   A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda [J].
Aronchick, CA ;
Lipshutz, WH ;
Wright, SH ;
Dufrayne, F ;
Bergman, G .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2000, 52 (03) :346-352
[4]   Low volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy:: Randomized, endoscopist-blinded trial of liquid sodium phosphate versus tablet sodium phosphate [J].
Balaban, DH ;
Leavell, BS ;
Oblinger, MJ ;
Thompson, WO ;
Bolton, ND ;
Pambianco, DJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2003, 98 (04) :827-832
[5]   PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED, ENDOSCOPIC-BLINDED TRIAL COMPARING PRECOLONOSCOPY BOWEL CLEANSING METHODS [J].
COHEN, SM ;
WEXNER, SD ;
BINDEROW, SR ;
NOGUERAS, JJ ;
DANIEL, N ;
EHRENPREIS, ED ;
JENSEN, J ;
BONNER, GF ;
RUDERMAN, WB .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 1994, 37 (07) :689-696
[6]   Comparison of reduced volume Versus four liters sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing [J].
DiPalma, JA ;
Wolff, BG ;
Meagher, A ;
Cleveland, MV .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2003, 98 (10) :2187-2191
[7]  
Faigel DO, 2003, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V57, P446
[8]   A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy [J].
Harewood, GC ;
Wiersema, MJ ;
Melton, LJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2002, 97 (12) :3186-3194
[9]   Physiologic effects of bowel preparation [J].
Holte, K ;
Nielsen, KG ;
Madsen, JL ;
Kehlet, H .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2004, 47 (08) :1397-1402
[10]   Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2001, with a special feature regarding survival [J].
Jemal, A ;
Clegg, LX ;
Ward, E ;
Ries, LAG ;
Wu, XC ;
Jamison, PM ;
Wingo, PA ;
Howe, HL ;
Anderson, RN ;
Edwards, BK .
CANCER, 2004, 101 (01) :3-27