Increased Cost With Use of Brand-Name Bowel Preparation by Patients With Medicare Part D From 2013 to 2015.

High-quality bowel preparation (prep) before colonoscopy is essential for the success of the procedure.1 Bowel preps should be safe, tolerable, efficacious, and allow for visualization of polyps 5 mm or larger.2 Full-volume (4 L) polyethylene glycol-3350 with electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS) has been considered a standard bowel prep regimen, with good safety and efficacy profiles, and is available as a generic.2.

Budget-impact model for colonoscopy cost calculation and comparison between 2 litre PEG+ASC and sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate or sodium phosphate oral bowel cleansing agents.

OBJECTIVE: With the availability of several bowel cleansing agents, physicians and hospitals performing colonoscopies will often base their choice of cleansing agent purely on acquisition cost. Therefore, an easy to use budget impact model has been developed and established as a tool to compare total colon preparation costs between different established bowel cleansing agents. METHODS: The model was programmed in Excel and designed as a questionnaire evaluating information on treatment costs for a range of established bowel cleansing products. The sum of costs is based on National Health Service reference costs for bowel cleansing products. Estimations are made for savings achievable when using a 2-litre polyethylene glycol with ascorbate components solution (PEG+ASC) in place of other bowel cleansing solutions. Test data were entered into the model to confirm validity and sensitivity. The model was then applied to a set of audit cost data from a major hospital colonoscopy unit in the UK. RESULTS: Descriptive analysis of the test data showed that the main cost drivers in the colonoscopy process are the procedure costs and costs for bed days rather than drug acquisition costs, irrespective of the cleansing agent. Audit data from a colonoscopy unit in the UK confirmed the finding with a saving of £107,000 per year in favour of PEG+ASC when compared to sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate solution (NaPic+MgCit). For every patient group the model calculated overall cost savings. This was irrespective of the higher drug expenditure associated with the use of PEG+ASC for bowel preparation. Savings were mainly realized through reduced costs for repeat colonoscopy procedures and associated costs, such as inpatient length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact model demonstrated that the primary cost driver was the procedure cost for colonoscopy. Savings can be realized through the use of PEG+ASC despite higher drug acquisition costs relative to the comparator products. From a global hospital funding perspective, the acquisition costs of bowel preparations should not be used as the primary reason to select the preferred treatment agent, but should be part of the consideration, with an emphasis on the clinical outcome.

Pico-Salax versus polyethylene glycol for bowel cleanout before colonoscopy in children: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Comparison of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in children with either Pico-Salax (sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate) or polyethylene glycol with electrolyte solution (PEG-ELS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this investigator-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 83 children (12.5 +/- 3.1 years) requiring elective colonoscopy at a referral hospital were randomly allocated to Pico-Salax (n = 43) or PEG-ELS (n = 40), and an intention-to treat analysis was applied. Pico-Salax was administered in two doses, one the evening before and one on the morning of the procedure. PEG-ELS was administered over 4 hours. Efficacy was scored using the Ottawa scale and other constructs. Tolerability and toxicity were measured by patient and nursing questionnaires and serum biochemistry. RESULTS: 35 of Pico-Salax patients (81 %) were satisfied or very satisfied with the cleanout, compared with 19 (48 %) in the PEG-ELS group (P = 0.001). No differences were found in bowel cleanout effectiveness, as judged by the Ottawa score (P = 0.24), completion rates (P = 0.69), colonoscopy duration (P = 0.59), need for enemas (P = 0.25), or physician's global impression (P = 0.7). Except for one case of mild dehydration in the Pico-Salax group, no clinically significant adverse events were recorded. Serum biochemistry results were similar between groups except for more hypermagnesemia associated with Pico-Salax and hypokalemia with PEG-ELS; neither was clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Children tolerate Pico-Salax better than PEG-ELS for bowel cleanout before colonoscopy. This study did not demonstrate superiority of effectiveness or safety for either regimen.