A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy

Background There are few data comparing U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Objective To compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP+MC) for bowel cleansing efficacy. Design Single-blind, randomized, con...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2014-12, Vol.80 (6), p.1113-1123
Hauptverfasser: Rex, Douglas K., MD, DiPalma, Jack A., MD, McGowan, John, MPH, Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1123
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1113
container_title Gastrointestinal endoscopy
container_volume 80
creator Rex, Douglas K., MD
DiPalma, Jack A., MD
McGowan, John, MPH
Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD
description Background There are few data comparing U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Objective To compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP+MC) for bowel cleansing efficacy. Design Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Setting Ten U.S. centers. Patients Outpatients undergoing colonoscopy for routine indications. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo bowel preparation with OSS or SP+MC. Both preparations were given in split doses. Main Outcome Measurements Cleansing efficacy on a 4-point scale from excellent (4) to poor (1). Results Among 338 randomized patients who took preparation, OSS resulted in a higher rate of successful (excellent or good) preparation (94.7% vs 85.7%; P  = .006) and more excellent preparations (54% vs 26%; P  < .001) compared with SP+MC. There was no difference between OSS and SP+MC in treatment-emergent adverse events. SP+MC had better scores for nausea, but the differences were small. Limitations The preparation grading scale has been used in previous studies and has regulatory acceptance but has not been formally validated. Conclusion The U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved split-dose regimen of OSS provides superior bowel cleansing compared with the approved split-dose regimen of SP+MC. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01786629 .)
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.329
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1629586649</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0016510714018276</els_id><sourcerecordid>1629586649</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-1c500066dd89e16e23c98ce2a33f0cc20da1ba270edcfe98e6922c06304f48d73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1u1DAQxy0EokvhAbggH7lkGTuJk4CEVFV8SZU4AGfLa0-KFycOnqTVvgDP0Wfpk-FoFw4cOFm2_x-a3zD2XMBWgFCv9ttrj1sJotpCvS1l94BtBHRNoZqme8g2kEVFLaA5Y0-I9gDQylI8ZmeyBtnKptqwXxfcxmEyyVMceex5TCZwWkJvZuQUwzL7_HHr5-_55vwy8MnbeBK8vr8bzPWItL5bP6fV5EdOU_Azd5GQuCG-i7cY-JQw95g17_6ujykXhzhGsnE6PGWPehMIn53Oc_bt_buvlx-Lq88fPl1eXBW2atq5ELbOQyjlXNuhUChL27UWpSnLHqyV4IzYGdkAOttj16LqpLSgSqj6qnVNec5eHnOnFH8uSLMePFkMwYwYF9JCya5ulaq6LBVHqU2RKGGvp-QHkw5agF7x673O-PWKX0OtM_7seXGKX3YDur-OP7yz4M1RgHnIG49Jk_U4WnQ-oZ21i_6_8W__cdvgR29N-IEHpH1c0pjpaaFJatBf1v2v6xcViFyvyt9DQ68q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1629586649</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Rex, Douglas K., MD ; DiPalma, Jack A., MD ; McGowan, John, MPH ; Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Rex, Douglas K., MD ; DiPalma, Jack A., MD ; McGowan, John, MPH ; Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Background There are few data comparing U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Objective To compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP+MC) for bowel cleansing efficacy. Design Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Setting Ten U.S. centers. Patients Outpatients undergoing colonoscopy for routine indications. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo bowel preparation with OSS or SP+MC. Both preparations were given in split doses. Main Outcome Measurements Cleansing efficacy on a 4-point scale from excellent (4) to poor (1). Results Among 338 randomized patients who took preparation, OSS resulted in a higher rate of successful (excellent or good) preparation (94.7% vs 85.7%; P  = .006) and more excellent preparations (54% vs 26%; P  &lt; .001) compared with SP+MC. There was no difference between OSS and SP+MC in treatment-emergent adverse events. SP+MC had better scores for nausea, but the differences were small. Limitations The preparation grading scale has been used in previous studies and has regulatory acceptance but has not been formally validated. Conclusion The U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved split-dose regimen of OSS provides superior bowel cleansing compared with the approved split-dose regimen of SP+MC. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01786629 .)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.329</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25028274</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Cathartics - therapeutic use ; Citrates - therapeutic use ; Citric Acid - therapeutic use ; Colonoscopy - methods ; Female ; Gastroenterology and Hepatology ; Humans ; Magnesium Sulfate - therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Organometallic Compounds - therapeutic use ; Picolines - therapeutic use ; Single-Blind Method ; Sulfates - therapeutic use</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2014-12, Vol.80 (6), p.1113-1123</ispartof><rights>American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-1c500066dd89e16e23c98ce2a33f0cc20da1ba270edcfe98e6922c06304f48d73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-1c500066dd89e16e23c98ce2a33f0cc20da1ba270edcfe98e6922c06304f48d73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.329$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25028274$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rex, Douglas K., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DiPalma, Jack A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGowan, John, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>Background There are few data comparing U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Objective To compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP+MC) for bowel cleansing efficacy. Design Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Setting Ten U.S. centers. Patients Outpatients undergoing colonoscopy for routine indications. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo bowel preparation with OSS or SP+MC. Both preparations were given in split doses. Main Outcome Measurements Cleansing efficacy on a 4-point scale from excellent (4) to poor (1). Results Among 338 randomized patients who took preparation, OSS resulted in a higher rate of successful (excellent or good) preparation (94.7% vs 85.7%; P  = .006) and more excellent preparations (54% vs 26%; P  &lt; .001) compared with SP+MC. There was no difference between OSS and SP+MC in treatment-emergent adverse events. SP+MC had better scores for nausea, but the differences were small. Limitations The preparation grading scale has been used in previous studies and has regulatory acceptance but has not been formally validated. Conclusion The U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved split-dose regimen of OSS provides superior bowel cleansing compared with the approved split-dose regimen of SP+MC. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01786629 .)</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Cathartics - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Citrates - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Citric Acid - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Colonoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnesium Sulfate - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Organometallic Compounds - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Picolines - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Single-Blind Method</subject><subject>Sulfates - therapeutic use</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1u1DAQxy0EokvhAbggH7lkGTuJk4CEVFV8SZU4AGfLa0-KFycOnqTVvgDP0Wfpk-FoFw4cOFm2_x-a3zD2XMBWgFCv9ttrj1sJotpCvS1l94BtBHRNoZqme8g2kEVFLaA5Y0-I9gDQylI8ZmeyBtnKptqwXxfcxmEyyVMceex5TCZwWkJvZuQUwzL7_HHr5-_55vwy8MnbeBK8vr8bzPWItL5bP6fV5EdOU_Azd5GQuCG-i7cY-JQw95g17_6ujykXhzhGsnE6PGWPehMIn53Oc_bt_buvlx-Lq88fPl1eXBW2atq5ELbOQyjlXNuhUChL27UWpSnLHqyV4IzYGdkAOttj16LqpLSgSqj6qnVNec5eHnOnFH8uSLMePFkMwYwYF9JCya5ulaq6LBVHqU2RKGGvp-QHkw5agF7x673O-PWKX0OtM_7seXGKX3YDur-OP7yz4M1RgHnIG49Jk_U4WnQ-oZ21i_6_8W__cdvgR29N-IEHpH1c0pjpaaFJatBf1v2v6xcViFyvyt9DQ68q</recordid><startdate>20141201</startdate><enddate>20141201</enddate><creator>Rex, Douglas K., MD</creator><creator>DiPalma, Jack A., MD</creator><creator>McGowan, John, MPH</creator><creator>Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141201</creationdate><title>A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy</title><author>Rex, Douglas K., MD ; DiPalma, Jack A., MD ; McGowan, John, MPH ; Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c478t-1c500066dd89e16e23c98ce2a33f0cc20da1ba270edcfe98e6922c06304f48d73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Cathartics - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Citrates - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Citric Acid - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Colonoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology and Hepatology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnesium Sulfate - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Organometallic Compounds - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Picolines - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Single-Blind Method</topic><topic>Sulfates - therapeutic use</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rex, Douglas K., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DiPalma, Jack A., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGowan, John, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rex, Douglas K., MD</au><au>DiPalma, Jack A., MD</au><au>McGowan, John, MPH</au><au>Cleveland, Mark vB., PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>2014-12-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>80</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1113</spage><epage>1123</epage><pages>1113-1123</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><abstract>Background There are few data comparing U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved low-volume bowel preparations for colonoscopy. Objective To compare oral sulfate solution (OSS) with sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP+MC) for bowel cleansing efficacy. Design Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Setting Ten U.S. centers. Patients Outpatients undergoing colonoscopy for routine indications. Interventions Patients were randomized to undergo bowel preparation with OSS or SP+MC. Both preparations were given in split doses. Main Outcome Measurements Cleansing efficacy on a 4-point scale from excellent (4) to poor (1). Results Among 338 randomized patients who took preparation, OSS resulted in a higher rate of successful (excellent or good) preparation (94.7% vs 85.7%; P  = .006) and more excellent preparations (54% vs 26%; P  &lt; .001) compared with SP+MC. There was no difference between OSS and SP+MC in treatment-emergent adverse events. SP+MC had better scores for nausea, but the differences were small. Limitations The preparation grading scale has been used in previous studies and has regulatory acceptance but has not been formally validated. Conclusion The U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved split-dose regimen of OSS provides superior bowel cleansing compared with the approved split-dose regimen of SP+MC. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01786629 .)</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>25028274</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.329</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-5107
ispartof Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2014-12, Vol.80 (6), p.1113-1123
issn 0016-5107
1097-6779
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1629586649
source MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)
subjects Aged
Cathartics - therapeutic use
Citrates - therapeutic use
Citric Acid - therapeutic use
Colonoscopy - methods
Female
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Humans
Magnesium Sulfate - therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Organometallic Compounds - therapeutic use
Picolines - therapeutic use
Single-Blind Method
Sulfates - therapeutic use
title A comparison of oral sulfate solution with sodium picosulfate: magnesium citrate in split doses as bowel preparation for colonoscopy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T08%3A40%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20oral%20sulfate%20solution%20with%20sodium%20picosulfate:%C2%A0magnesium%20citrate%20in%20split%20doses%20as%20bowel%20preparation%C2%A0for%20colonoscopy&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Rex,%20Douglas%20K.,%20MD&rft.date=2014-12-01&rft.volume=80&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1113&rft.epage=1123&rft.pages=1113-1123&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.329&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1629586649%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1629586649&rft_id=info:pmid/25028274&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0016510714018276&rfr_iscdi=true