Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences 10/2016

Open Access 01-10-2016 | Original Article

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

Authors: Kathryn Anastassopoulos, Francis A. Farraye, Tyler Knight, Sam Colman, Mark vB. Cleveland, Russell W. Pelham

Published in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Issue 10/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Colonoscopy may be one of the most frequent elective procedures in older adults and is associated with a low occurrence of complications. However, reduction of risks attributable to the bowel preparation may be achieved with the use of effective and safer products.

Aim

The aim of this study was to examine the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with SUPREP® [oral sulfate solution (OSS)] and other common prescription bowel preparations (non-OSS).

Methods

This real-world, observational study used de-identified health insurance claims and laboratory results to identify TEAEs in the 3 months following screening colonoscopy in adults with a prescription for a bowel preparation in the prior 60 days. The unadjusted and adjusted (controlling for patient risk factors) cumulative incidences of TEAEs were estimated using Kaplan–Meier and Poisson regression, respectively.

Results

Among patients ≥45 years, the overall cumulative incidence was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the OSS cohort than in the non-OSS cohort (unadjusted: 2.31 vs. 2.89 %; adjusted: 1.61 vs. 1.95 %), with significantly lower acute cardiac conditions (1.56 vs. 1.90 %; p < 0.001), renal failure/other serious renal diseases (OSS: 0.21 %, non-OSS: 0.32 %; p < 0.001), and serum electrolyte abnormalities (OSS: 0.39 %, non-OSS: 0.49 %; p = 0.017). There were no significant differences between cohorts in death, seizure disorders, aggravation of gout, and ischemic colitis. Results were similar in the adjusted cumulative incidences.

Conclusions

In actual use, the overall cumulative incidence of TEAEs was significantly lower in the OSS cohort, demonstrating that OSS is as safe as, or possibly safer than, non-OSS prescription bowel preparations.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–750.CrossRefPubMed Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:739–750.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Fisher DA, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, et al. ASGE standards of practice committee, complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:745–752.CrossRefPubMed Fisher DA, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, et al. ASGE standards of practice committee, complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:745–752.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1528–1545.PubMed Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1528–1545.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Davis GL, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, et al. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology. 1980;78:991–995.PubMed Davis GL, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, et al. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology. 1980;78:991–995.PubMed
5.
go back to reference Fordtran JS, Santa Ana C, Cleveland MVB. A low sodium solution for gastrointestinal lavage. Gastroenterology. 1990;98:11–16.CrossRefPubMed Fordtran JS, Santa Ana C, Cleveland MVB. A low sodium solution for gastrointestinal lavage. Gastroenterology. 1990;98:11–16.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WC, et al. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastro. 1990;85:422–427. Vanner SJ, MacDonald PH, Paterson WC, et al. A randomized prospective trial comparing oral sodium phosphate with standard polyethylene glycol-based lavage solution (Golytely) in preparation of patients for colonoscopy. Am J Gastro. 1990;85:422–427.
7.
go back to reference Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: an underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16:3389–3396.CrossRefPubMed Markowitz GS, Stokes MB, Radhakrishnan J, et al. Acute phosphate nephropathy following oral sodium phosphate bowel purgative: an underrecognized cause of chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16:3389–3396.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference DiPalma JA, 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 Gastro. 2009;104:2275–2284.CrossRef DiPalma JA, 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 Gastro. 2009;104:2275–2284.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Patel V, Nicar M, Emmett M, et al. Intestinal and renal effects of low-volume phosphate and sulfate cathartic solutions designed for cleansing the colon: pathophysiological studies in five normal subjects. Am J Gastro. 2009;104:953–965.CrossRef Patel V, Nicar M, Emmett M, et al. Intestinal and renal effects of low-volume phosphate and sulfate cathartic solutions designed for cleansing the colon: pathophysiological studies in five normal subjects. Am J Gastro. 2009;104:953–965.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rex DK, Di Palma JA, Rodriguez R, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:328–336.CrossRefPubMed Rex DK, Di Palma JA, Rodriguez R, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing reduced-volume oral sulfate solution with standard 4-liter sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solution as preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:328–336.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Marlotto AB, et al. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the medicare population. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:849–857.CrossRefPubMed Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Marlotto AB, et al. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the medicare population. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:849–857.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Department of Radiology [Internet]. MGH Laboratory Handbook: Reference Intervals—MGH Clinical Laboratories [cited 2011 March 23]. Available from: http://mghlabtest.partners.org. Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Department of Radiology [Internet]. MGH Laboratory Handbook: Reference Intervals—MGH Clinical Laboratories [cited 2011 March 23]. Available from: http://​mghlabtest.​partners.​org.
14.
go back to reference Sands BE, Duh M-S, Cali C, et al. Algorithms to identify colonic ischemia, complications of constipation and irritable bowel syndrome in medical claims data: development and validation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2006;15:47–56.CrossRef Sands BE, Duh M-S, Cali C, et al. Algorithms to identify colonic ischemia, complications of constipation and irritable bowel syndrome in medical claims data: development and validation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Safety. 2006;15:47–56.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Upton G, Cook I. A dictionary of statistics. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. Upton G, Cook I. A dictionary of statistics. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014.
17.
go back to reference Yoav B, Yosef H. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B. 1995;57:289–300. Yoav B, Yosef H. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B. 1995;57:289–300.
18.
go back to reference Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, Thompson WD. Methods in observational epidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996. Kelsey JL, Whittemore AS, Evans AS, Thompson WD. Methods in observational epidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
19.
go back to reference Wilchesky M, Tamblyn RM, Huang A. Validation of diagnostic codes within medical services claims. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:131–141.CrossRefPubMed Wilchesky M, Tamblyn RM, Huang A. Validation of diagnostic codes within medical services claims. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:131–141.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Schneeweiss S, Avorn A. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323–337.CrossRefPubMed Schneeweiss S, Avorn A. A review of uses of health care utilization databases for epidemiologic research on therapeutics. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:323–337.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Pelham RW, Alcorn H Jr, Cleveland MVB. A pharmacokinetics evaluation of a new, low-volume, oral sulfate colon cleansing preparation in patients with renal or hepatic impairment and healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50:350–354.CrossRefPubMed Pelham RW, Alcorn H Jr, Cleveland MVB. A pharmacokinetics evaluation of a new, low-volume, oral sulfate colon cleansing preparation in patients with renal or hepatic impairment and healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50:350–354.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Pelham R, Jongenelen I, Cleveland MVB. The safety and biochemistry of an experimental low volume, oral sulfate colonoscopy preparation compared to a phosphate-based preparation in humans. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:T2028.2009.CrossRef Pelham R, Jongenelen I, Cleveland MVB. The safety and biochemistry of an experimental low volume, oral sulfate colonoscopy preparation compared to a phosphate-based preparation in humans. Gastroenterology. 2009;136:T2028.2009.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Rutter CM, Johnson E, Miglioretti DL, et al. Adverse events after screening and follow-up colonoscopy. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:289–296.CrossRefPubMed Rutter CM, Johnson E, Miglioretti DL, et al. Adverse events after screening and follow-up colonoscopy. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:289–296.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Ho JM, Gruneir A, Fischer HD, et al. Serious events in older Ontario residents receiving bowel preparations for outpatient colonoscopy with various comorbidity profiles: a descriptive, population-based study. Can J Gastroenterol. 2012;26:436–440.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ho JM, Gruneir A, Fischer HD, et al. Serious events in older Ontario residents receiving bowel preparations for outpatient colonoscopy with various comorbidity profiles: a descriptive, population-based study. Can J Gastroenterol. 2012;26:436–440.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:880–886.CrossRefPubMed Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:880–886.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1670–1677.CrossRefPubMed Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1670–1677.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Shieh FK, Gunaratnam N, Mohamud SO, et al. MiraLAX-Gatorade bowel prep versus GoLytely before screening colonoscopy: an endoscopic database study in a community hospital. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:e96–e100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shieh FK, Gunaratnam N, Mohamud SO, et al. MiraLAX-Gatorade bowel prep versus GoLytely before screening colonoscopy: an endoscopic database study in a community hospital. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:e96–e100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Samarasena JB, Muthusamy VR, Jamal MM. Split-dosed MiraLAX/Gatorade is an effective, safe, and tolerable option for bowel preparation in low-risk patients: a randomized controlled study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1036–1042.CrossRefPubMed Samarasena JB, Muthusamy VR, Jamal MM. Split-dosed MiraLAX/Gatorade is an effective, safe, and tolerable option for bowel preparation in low-risk patients: a randomized controlled study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1036–1042.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Enestvedt BK, Brian Fennerty M, Zaman A, et al. MiraLAX vs. Golytely: is there a significant difference in the adenoma detection rate? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:775–782.CrossRefPubMed Enestvedt BK, Brian Fennerty M, Zaman A, et al. MiraLAX vs. Golytely: is there a significant difference in the adenoma detection rate? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:775–782.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Kathryn Anastassopoulos
Francis A. Farraye
Tyler Knight
Sam Colman
Mark vB. Cleveland
Russell W. Pelham
Publication date
01-10-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Issue 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-016-4214-2

Other articles of this Issue 10/2016

Digestive Diseases and Sciences 10/2016 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.