Comparison of polyethylene glycol vs sodium picosulphate vs sodium biphosphonate by efficacy in bowel cleansing and patients' tolerability: a randomised trial

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety.

RESULTS

Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I² range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients.

CONCLUSION

Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the best option for bowel preparation [sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG)] for elective colonoscopy in adult outpatients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Lilacs. No restrictions were placed for country, year of publication or language. The last search in the literature was performed on November 20th, 2017. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. The subjects included were adult outpatients who underwent bowel cleansing for elective colonoscopy. The included studies compared sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and PEG for bowel preparation. Exclusion criteria were the inclusion of inpatients or groups with specific conditions, failure to mention patient status (outpatient or inpatient) or dietary restrictions, and permission to have unrestricted diet on the day prior to the exam. Primary outcomes were bowel cleaning success and/or tolerability of colon preparation. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates. Data on intention-to-treat were extracted by two independent authors and risk of bias assessed through the Jadad scale. Funnel plots, Egger's test, Higgins' test (I 2) and sensitivity analyses were used to assess reporting bias and heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by computing risk difference (RD) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) version 6.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) was the software chosen to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

662 records were identified but only 16 trials with 6200 subjects were included for the meta-analysis. High heterogeneity among studies was found and sensitivity analysis was needed and performed to interpret data. In the pooled analysis, SPMC was better for bowel cleaning [MH FE, RD 0.03, IC (0.01, 0.05), P = 0.003, I 2 = 33%, NNT 34], for tolerability [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.03, 0.13), P = 0.002, I 2 = 88%, NNT 13] and for adverse events [MH RE, RD 0.13, IC (0.05, 0.22), P = 0.002, I 2 = 88%, NNT 7]. There was no difference in regard to polyp and adenoma detection rates. Additional analyses were made by subgroups (type of regimen, volume of PEG solution and dietary recommendations). SPMC demonstrated better tolerability levels when compared to PEG in the following subgroups: "day-before preparation" [MH FE, RD 0.17, IC (0.13, 0.21), P < 0.0001, I 2 = 0%, NNT 6], "preparation in accordance with time interval for colonoscopy" [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.15), P = 0.02, I 2 = 54%, NNT 13], when compared to "high-volume PEG solutions" [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.14), I 2 = 89%, P = 0.02, NNT 13] and in the subgroup "liquid diet on day before" [MH RE, RD 0.14, IC (0.06,0.22), P = 0.0006, I 2 = 81%, NNT 8]. SPMC was also found to cause fewer adverse events than PEG in the "high-volume PEG solutions" [MH RE, RD -0.18, IC (-0.30, -0.07), P = 0.002, I 2 = 79%, NNT 6] and PEG in the "low-residue diet" subgroup [MH RE, RD -0.17, IC (-0.27, 0.07), P = 0.0008, I 2 = 86%, NNT 6].

CONCLUSION

SPMC seems to be better than PEG for bowel preparation, with a similar bowel cleaning success rate, better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse events.