Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2007 Apr;65(4):660-70.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.047. Epub 2006 Dec 14.

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

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

Lawrence Wruble et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Apr.

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types