Advancing bowel preparation: DWJ1609 represents a patient-centered evolution in colonoscopy preparation

Table 1 Comparative overview of contemporary bowel preparation agents

Preparation agent	Volume	Efficacy (%)	Nausea (%)	Headache (%)	Key safety issue	Tolerability	Ref.
4 L PEG	4 L split	85-95	20-40	5-10	Excellent safety	Moderate	Rivas et al[10], 2014
2 L PEG + ascorbic	2 L split	90-97	15-25	3-5	Renal caution	Good	Rivas et al[10], 2014 and Bisschops et al[47], 2019
SPMC powder	2 sachets + 2-3 L	85-92	10-20	2-5	Mucosal injury, electrolytes	Moderate-good	Seo et al[13], 2015; Dillon and Laher[16], 2009; and van Lieshout et al[52], 2017
SPMC liquid	2 bottles + 1-2 L	88-94	8-15	2-4	Electrolyte monitoring	Good	Hassan et al[42], 2013 and Hoy et al[56], 2009
Conventional OST	28 tablets +2.55 L	92-98	22-34	8-12	Gastropathy, high salt	Moderate	Yang et al[21], 2020; Yoon et al[24], 2024; and Moulin and Ponchon[39], 2018
DWJ1609	20 tablets + 2.55 L	96.97	7.6	0.95	No electrolyte issues, 75% less salt	Good-very good	Park et al[3], 2026
1 L NER1006	1 L + 1 L water	90-95	12-20	3-6	Well-tolerated	Good-very good	Bisschops et al[47], 2019

This table presents data derived from independent studies with differing designs, patient populations, outcome definitions, and follow-up periods. All comparisons between agents are indirect and should be interpreted with caution. No head-to-head randomized trial data are available for all agents listed. These data are intended to provide contextual orientation rather than definitive comparative efficacy or safety conclusions. PEG: Polyethylene glycol; SPMC: Sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate; OST: Oral sulfate tablet.