» Articles » PMID: 23095990

A Validated Bowel-preparation Tolerability Questionnaire and Assessment of Three Commonly Used Bowel-cleansing Agents

Overview
Journal Dig Dis Sci
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2012 Oct 26
PMID 23095990
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Study Aims: Bowel-cleansing studies are frequently underpowered, poorly designed, and with subjective assessments. Consensus on tolerability of the bowel-cleansing agents is thus lacking. This study developed and validated a bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire and used it to assess the tolerability of three bowel-cleansing agents, sodium phosphate (NaP), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and sodium picosulphate (Pico), in a prospective randomized single-blinded trial of ambulatory patients.

Patients And Methods: The bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire was validated in 125 consecutive patients and then bowel-preparation agent tolerability was assessed in 634 patients in a prospective randomized single-blinded trial.

Results: The questionnaire's internal consistency was satisfactory with good to excellent "test-retest" reliability for aggregate tolerability and visual analogue scores. Validity assessment confirmed it as reliable and accurate. Of 634 patients, 97.8 % took >75 % of the allocated preparation and 98.9 % completed the questionnaire. Overall, Pico was better tolerated than PEG (p < 0.001) and NaP (p < 0.001). NaP was better tolerated than PEG (p < 0.001). Regardless of the bowel-preparation agent used, males tolerated them better than females (p = 0.009) as did patients having their procedure in the AM. Older patients, however, tolerated all preparations better than younger patients (p = 0.006).

Conclusions: This study used the first validated bowel-preparation tolerability questionnaire and identified that age, sex, and procedure time all impacted tolerability. Overall, Pico was best tolerated, but PEG's tolerability in patients ≥60 years was equal to that of Pico and NaP, suggesting that PEG can be recommended for older patients to avoid the electrolyte disturbances associated with the osmotic preparations.

Citing Articles

Impact of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin on bowel cleaning and gastrointestinal symptoms in type 2 diabetes.

Tong Y, Huang J, Chen Y, Tu M, Wang W Front Pharmacol. 2023; 14:1176206.

PMID: 37089939 PMC: 10115949. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1176206.


Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Different Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes Solution Bowel Preparation for Morning Colonoscopy.

Tian H, Li H, Zhu X, Liu W, Fan Y, Shi L Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 2022:8169649.

PMID: 36092537 PMC: 9453094. DOI: 10.1155/2022/8169649.


Prospective single-blinded single-center randomized controlled trial of Prep Kit-C and Moviprep: Does underlying inflammatory bowel disease impact tolerability and efficacy?.

Mohsen W, Williams A, Wark G, Sechi A, Koo J, Xuan W World J Gastroenterol. 2021; 27(11):1090-1100.

PMID: 33776375 PMC: 7985733. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i11.1090.


A Phase 2 Randomized Trial of DCL-101, a Novel Pill-Based Colonoscopy Prep, vs 4L Polyethylene Glycol-Electrolyte Solution.

Bachwich D, Lewis J, Kowal V, Jacobson B, Calderwood A, Kochman M Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2021; 11(12):e00264.

PMID: 33512795 PMC: 7678801. DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000264.


A European, multicentre, observational, post-authorisation safety study of oral sulphate solution: compliance and safety.

Regula J, Spaander M, Suchanek S, Kornowski A, Perrot V, Fischbach W Endosc Int Open. 2020; 8(3):E247-E256.

PMID: 32140554 PMC: 7055619. DOI: 10.1055/a-1090-7289.


References
1.
Hookey L, Vanner S . Pico-salax plus two-day bisacodyl is superior to pico-salax alone or oral sodium phosphate for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104(3):703-9. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2008.167. View

2.
Brazier J, Harper R, Jones N, OCathain A, Thomas K, Usherwood T . Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992; 305(6846):160-4. PMC: 1883187. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.305.6846.160. View

3.
Zwas F, Cirillo N, El-Serag H, Eisen R . Colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with oral sodium phosphate solution. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996; 43(5):463-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(96)70286-9. View

4.
Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D . Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007; 25(4):373-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03212.x. View

5.
Kastenberg D, Barish C, Burack H, Dalke D, Duckor S, Putnam W . Tolerability and patient acceptance of sodium phosphate tablets compared with 4-L PEG solution in colon cleansing: combined results of 2 identically designed, randomized, controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase 3 trials. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007; 41(1):54-61. DOI: 10.1097/01.mcg.0000212662.66644.76. View