Magnesium Citrate Capsules in Colonoscopy Preparation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Screening colonoscopies are recommended for the detection and prevention of colon cancer. Liquid colonoscopy preparations may be poorly tolerated. We evaluated the adequacy and tolerability of a novel low-cost colonoscopy preparation consisting of magnesium citrate capsules and bisacodyl (MCCB).Methods
This is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial of 51 patients undergoing screening colonoscopies, who received a bowel preparation of either 4 liters of GoLYTELY (Braintree Laboratories, Inc., Braintree, MA) or MCCB. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleanliness, defined as a total score ≥ 6 on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and no colon segment with a score of zero. The secondary outcome was patient satisfaction, assessed by a validated questionnaire.Results
A total of 100% of patients in both arms achieved adequate colon cleanliness, and the magnesium citrate arm had superior patient satisfaction (mean satisfaction score: 54.8 vs. 172.8; p < 0.001).Conclusions
A pill-based colonoscopy preparation of MCCB may be a low-cost option for patients reluctant to consume a liquid preparation.
SUBMITTER: Eidensohn Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8765591 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for the investigation of abnormalities within the colon. However, its success is highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the bowel preparation efficacy of picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PMC) vs polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a one-day vs two-day split dose regimen. METHODS:A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre in Calgary, Canada. 171 colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to split-dose PMC or PEG lavage as well as into one-day split or two-day split regimens in blocks of eight. Bowel preparation quality was recorded in a blinded manner by the endoscopist using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) prior to washing or suctioning. The scale results were analyzed using a two-factor analysis of variance. RESULTS:141 patients received complete colonoscopies (PMC-71; PEG-70). PEG was found to be superior to PMC (mean OBPS: 4.14 ± 2.64 vs 5.11 ± 3.44, p = 0.019), when adjusted for administration regimen, leading to significantly more adequate bowel preparations (79.7% vs 59.7%, p = 0.007). A two-day split dose was superior to a one-day split dose regimen (mean OBPS: 3.68± 2.82 vs 5.69 ± 3.06, p<0.001). Two-day split dosing also resulted in a better right colon cleanliness score (right bowel OBPS 1.27±0.11 vs 2.10±0.12 for one-day split, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Optimal bowel preparation was achieved with the use of PEG lavage when administered in a two-day split dose regimen. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01415687.
| S-EPMC6438535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS:Polyethylene glycol-based electrolyte solutions (PEG-ELS) and the combination of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) are commonly used bowel preparation agents. The aim of the present study was to compare the two agents with regard to cleansing efficacy and tolerance among individuals scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS:The 368 colonoscopy outpatients at three Norwegian hospitals were randomized to bowel lavage with either PEG-ELS or SPMC. Compliance and patient tolerance were evaluated using a patient questionnaire. Bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPS), a validated scoring system with scores between 0 (best) and 14. RESULTS:There was no difference in the cleansing quality between the PEG-ELS and SPMC groups (median OBPS 5.0 in both groups). The group that received SPMC reported better overall patient tolerance than the PEG-ELS group (72.6?% vs 59.0?% reporting no or slight discomfort, P?<?0.01). Compliance with the recommended total fluid intake (4?L) was better in the SPMC group than in the PEG-ELS group (94.2?% vs 81.2?% respectively, P?<?0.01); moreover, the polyp detection rate was superior (34.3?% vs 23.3?%, P?=?0.02). CONCLUSION:PEG-ELS and SPMC are equally effective in cleansing efficacy, but SPMC was better tolerated by patients and resulted in superior patient compliance and polyp detection rate. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01624454.
| S-EPMC4423298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adherence with diet and prescribed purgative is essential for proper cleansing with low-volume bowel preparations. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of a customized mobile application (App) on adherence and quality of bowel preparation.One hundred and sixty (160) eligible patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were randomly assigned to paper (control) or App-based instructions. The preparation consisted of low-fiber diet for 2 days, clear fluids for one day and split-dose sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPS). Before colonoscopy, information was collected regarding adherence with, and utility of the provided instructions. The colonoscopists, blinded to assignment, graded bowel preparation using the Aronchick, Ottawa, and Chicago preparation scales. The primary endpoint was adherence with instructions. Quality of preparation was a secondary endpoint.No difference in overall adherence or bowel cleanliness was observed between the study arms. Adherence was reported in 82.4% of App vs. 73.4% of controls (P=0.40). An adequate bowel preparation on the Aronchick scale was noted in 77.2 vs. 82.5%, respectively (P=0.68). Mean scores on the Ottawa and Chicago scales were also similar. Gender, age, time of colonoscopy, and BMI did not influence preparation or adherence. Compliance with the clear fluid diet component was noted in 94% of patients with BMI<30 vs. 77% with BMI?30 (P<0.01). SPS was well tolerated by 81.9% of patients. The App was user-friendly and received higher overall rating in this respect than paper instructions (P<0.01).SPS is well tolerated and effective for bowel cleansing regardless of instruction method. Customized smartphone applications are effective, well-accepted and could replace standard paper instructions for bowel preparation.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02410720.
| S-EPMC5288599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Magnesium supplements may have beneficial effects on arterial stiffness. Yet, to our knowledge, no head-to-head comparison between various magnesium formulations in terms of effects on arterial stiffness has been performed. We assessed the effects of magnesium citrate supplementation on arterial stiffness and blood pressure and explored whether other formulations of magnesium have similar effects. Methods and Results In this randomized trial, subjects who were overweight and slightly obese received either magnesium citrate, magnesium oxide, magnesium sulfate, or placebo for 24 weeks. The total daily dose of magnesium was 450 mg/d. The primary outcome was carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity, which is the gold standard method for measuring arterial stiffness. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure and plasma and urine magnesium. Overall, 164 participants (mean±SD age, 63.2±6.8 years; 104 [63.4%] women) were included. In the intention-to-treat analysis, neither magnesium citrate nor the other formulations had an effect on carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity or blood pressure at 24 weeks compared with placebo. Magnesium citrate increased plasma (+0.04 mmol/L; 95% CI, +0.02 to +0.06 mmol/L) and urine magnesium (+3.12 mmol/24 h; 95% CI, +2.23 to +4.01 mmol/24 h) compared with placebo. Effects on plasma magnesium were similar among the magnesium supplementation groups, but magnesium citrate led to a more pronounced increase in 24-hour urinary magnesium excretion than magnesium oxide or magnesium sulfate. One serious adverse event was reported, which was considered unrelated to the study treatment. Conclusions Oral magnesium citrate supplementation for 24 weeks did not significantly change arterial stiffness or blood pressure. Magnesium oxide and magnesium sulfate had similar nonsignificant effects. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03632590.
| S-EPMC9075273 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe presence of small air bubbles and foam are an impediment to a successful colonoscopy. They impair an endoscopist's view and diminish the diagnostic accuracy of the study. This has been particularly noted to be of concern with the switch to lower volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and bisacodyl combination preparation.AimTo evaluate the effect of oral simethicone addition to bowel preparation on intraluminal bubbles reduction during colonoscopy.MethodsDescribed is a prospective, randomized, multi-center, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the use of premixed simethicone formulation with split-regimen, low-volume PEG-bisacodyl combination bowel preparation for 168 outpatients undergoing screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopies. Primary outcome includes evaluation of bubbles during colonoscopy graded using the Intraluminal Bubbles Scale. Secondary outcomes include evaluation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), total number of polyps, polyp size differentiation, polyp laterality, adenoma detection, mass detection, cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, and patient-reported adverse events.ResultsHigher Intraluminal Bubbles grades III and IV (less than 75% of the mucosa cleared of bubbles/foam requiring intervention with simethicone infused wash) were detected in the placebo group [Simethicone n = 4/84 vs Placebo n = 20/84 (P = 0.007)]. BBPS total score was 7.42 [standard deviation (SD) = ± 1.51] in the simethicone group and 7.28 (SD = ± 1.44) in the placebo group (P = 0.542) from a total of 9. Significantly higher number of adenomas were detected in the simethicone group (P = 0.001).ConclusionThe addition of simethicone to bowel preparation is well advised for its anti-foaming properties. The results of this study suggest that addition of oral simethicone can improve bowel wall visibility.
| S-EPMC6580307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient compliance during bowel preparation is important for successful colonoscopy. Bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol (PEG), the most commonly used solution for cleansing, involves the unpleasant ingestion of a large amount of liquid. Sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate (SP-MC) solution is an alternative option with better palatability than PEG. Therefore, in this study, we compared the efficacy and patient tolerability among the following three bowel preparation protocols: 2?L PEG-ascorbic acid (ASc), 1?L PEG-ASc plus bisacodyl, and SP-MC 340?mL plus bisacodyl. We conducted a randomized prospective endoscopist-blinded study between August 2018 and January 2019. A total of 311 patients were randomly classified into three groups according to the above-described bowel preparation protocols. To evaluate the efficacy of bowel cleansing, we used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. The degree of symptoms and the patients' satisfaction with each bowel preparation method were investigated using a questionnaire completed before sedation for colonoscopy. The baseline characteristics were similar among the three groups. There was no significant difference in the bowel preparation quality among the three groups. However, the incidence of symptoms, such as abdominal fullness and pain, was significantly lower (P = 0.006 and 0.027, respectively) while the patients' satisfaction rate was significantly higher (P = 0.012) in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the two PEG groups. In this study, the efficacy of the SP-MC plus bisacodyl solution was similar to that of the PEG solutions. However, patient tolerability and satisfaction were better in the SP-MC plus bisacodyl group than in the other groups. In conclusion, the use of SP-MC plus bisacodyl bowel preparation solution might be a better method for providing good intestinal cleansing and improving patient compliance.
| S-EPMC7072100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Arterial stiffness is closely related to the process of atherosclerosis, an independent cardiovascular risk factor, and predictive of future cardiovascular events and mortality. Recently, we showed that magnesium citrate supplementation results in a clinically relevant improvement of arterial stiffness. It remained unclear whether the observed effect was due to magnesium or citrate, and whether other magnesium compounds may have similar effects. Therefore, we aim to study the long-term effects of magnesium citrate, magnesium oxide and magnesium sulfate on arterial stiffness. In addition, we aim to investigate possible underlying mechanisms, including changes in blood pressure and changes in gut microbiota diversity. METHODS:In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, a total of 162 healthy overweight and slightly obese men and women will be recruited. During a 24-week intervention, individuals will be randomized to receive: magnesium citrate; magnesium oxide; magnesium sulfate (total daily dose of magnesium for each active treatment 450?mg); or placebo. The primary outcome of the study is arterial stiffness measured by the carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWVc-f), which is the gold standard for quantifying arterial stiffness. Secondary outcomes are office blood pressure, measured by a continuous blood pressure monitoring device, and gut microbiota, measured in fecal samples. Measurements will be performed at baseline and at weeks 2, 12 and 24. DISCUSSION:The present study is expected to provide evidence for the effects of different available magnesium formulations (organic and inorganic) on well-established cardiovascular risk markers, including arterial stiffness and blood pressure, as well as on the human gut microbiota. As such, the study may contribute to the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in slightly obese, but otherwise healthy, individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03632590 . Retrospectively registered on 15 August 2018.
| S-EPMC6540466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this randomized clinical trial, we have compared the Shudh™ colon cleanse (SCC) with HalfLytely(®) colon prep (HCP) to evaluate the efficacy, bowel preparation time (BPT), adverse events, electrolyte abnormalities and patient acceptability.Patients were randomized to receive either SCC (n = 65) or HCP (n = 68). All colonoscopies were performed by a single, blinded endoscopist. Colon prep was evaluated on a 5 point grading scale. Statistical non-inferiority was pre-defined as a difference of <15 % in the lower limit of the 95.5 % confidence interval for the treatment difference. Data that were collected include bowel prep score, BPT, adverse events, electrolyte abnormalities and patient acceptability.Bowel preparation efficacy was rated as "successful" for 59/65 (90.7 %) in SCC versus 66/68 (97.1 %) in HCP. This gave a success difference of -6.4 % with a 1-sided 95 % lower confidence limit (LCI) for the difference = -13.3 % (non-inferiority p = 0.25). This difference fell within the predefined limit for non-inferiority. The average BPT for SCC was 1.9 h versus 10.9 in HCP (p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. None of the patients in either group had any clinically significant electrolyte imbalance. Patient ratings for palatability and willingness to repeat were significantly better for SCC (p < 0.05).SCC was found to not be inferior to PEG with regards to the quality of bowel preparation. It is worth highlighting that a major advantage of SCC is shorter BPT.
| S-EPMC3731514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo identify the most effective laxative for bowel preparation in unsedated colonoscopy.MethodsBetween April 2019 and April 2020, a total of 586 outpatients scheduled for unsedated colonoscopy at the First Hospital of Jilin University (Changchun, China) were randomized into one of two groups, namely, the polyethylene glycol (PEG) group or the oral sodium phosphate solution (OSP) group. The cleaning efficiency and other relevant clinical parameters were compared between the two groups.ResultsEach group consisted of 293 patients. There were no significant differences in gender, body mass index, and history of abdominal surgery between the two groups. There were more cases of laxative intolerance in the PEG group than in the OSP group (7.5% vs. 0.7%, P < 0.05). After tube insertion, we found that the cleaning efficiency of OSP was better than that of PEG (P < 0.05). After cleaning, there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness between the two groups (P > 0.05). The colonoscopic insertion time of the PEG group was significantly shorter than that of the OSP group (10.0 vs. 12.0 min, P = 0.002), and colonoscopic insertion was more difficult in the OSP group than in the PEG group (P = 0.036). The VAS score of the PEG group patients was significantly lower than that of OSP group patients (4.0 ± 1.3 vs. 5.2 ± 1.7, P ≤ 0.001). There were no significant differences in the cecal intubation rate and the detection rate of polyps and ulcers/erosion between the two groups.ConclusionThe cleaning efficiency and tolerability of OSP were preferable to those of PEG, but there was no significant difference in bowel cleanliness after washing the colon and suctioning the fluid. Compared with patients of the OSP group, those of the PEG group required a shorter colonoscopic insertion time and reported a more comfortable experience. Therefore, for cases that are tolerant of PEG, PEG is a better choice for unsedated colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC7463375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare magnetic imaging-assisted colonoscopy (MIC) with conventional colonoscopy (CC).Magnetic imaging technology provides a computer-generated image of the shape and position of the colonoscope onto a monitor to give visual guidance to the endoscopist. It is designed to improve colonoscopy performance and tolerability for patients by enabling visualization of loop formation and endoscope position. Recently, a new version of MIC technology was developed for which there are limited data.To evaluate this latest generation of MIC among experienced rather than inexperienced or trainee endoscopists, a prospective randomized trial was performed using only gastroenterologists with therapeutic endoscopy training. Consecutive patients undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to MIC or CC, with patients blinded to their group assignment. Endoscopic procedural metrics and quantities of conscious sedation medications were recorded during the procedures. The procedure was classified as "usual" or "difficult" by the endoscopist at the conclusion of each case based on the need for adjunctive maneuvers to facilitate endoscope advancement. After more than one hour post-procedure, patients completed a 10 cm visual analogue pain scale to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced during their colonoscopy. The primary outcome was patient comfort expressed by the visual analogue pain score. Secondary outcomes consisted of endoscopic procedural metrics as well as a sedation score derived from standardized dose increments of the conscious sedation medications.Two hundred fifty-three patients were randomized and underwent MIC or CC between September 2011 and October 2012. The groups were similar in terms of the indications for colonoscopy and patient characteristics. There were no differences in cecal intubation rates (100% vs 99%), insertion distance-to-cecum (82 cm vs 83 cm), time-to-cecum (6.5 min vs 7.2 min), or polyp detection rate (47% vs 52%) between the MIC and CC groups. The primary outcome of mean pain score (1.0 vs 0.9 out of 10, P = 0.41) did not differ between MIC and CC groups, nor did the mean sedation score (8.2 vs 8.5, P = 0.34). Within the subgroup of cases considered more challenging or difficult, time-to-cecum was significantly faster with MIC compared to CC, 10.1 min vs 13.4 min respectively (P = 0.01). Sensitivity analyses confirmed a similar pattern of overall findings when each endoscopist was considered separately, demonstrating that the mean results for the entire group were not unduly influenced by outlier results from any one endoscopist.Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.
| S-EPMC4177499 | biostudies-literature