A randomized, prospective trial on efficacy and tolerability of low-volume bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy

Efficacy and tolerability of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid with senna versus 2 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for colonoscopic bowel preparation: Prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial

OBJECTIVES

Low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) reduces the dosage of colonoscopic bowel preparation (BP) solution, but is still poorly tolerated. Adding laxatives to the BP solution reduces the volume of fluid required, without affecting quality. This study aimed to compare 1 L PEG-Asc plus 24 mg senna (1L-PEG/AS) and conventional 2 L PEG-Asc (2L-PEG/A) regimens on BP quality and patient tolerability.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, investigator-blinded, noninferiority trial was performed between June and August 2022. Outpatients scheduled for colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A group. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to evaluate BP quality. Adverse events and tolerability were surveyed using questionnaires.

RESULTS

Overall, 344 patients received 1L-PEG/AS or 2L-PEG/A regimens. The baseline characteristics and adverse events of the two groups were comparable. The 1L-PEG/AS group showed noninferior adequate BP rates compared with the 2L-PEG/A group (88% vs. 89%, P = 1.00); overall BBPS was 7.1 ± 1.5 and 7.2 ± 1.5, respectively (P = 0.39). Higher willingness to repeat the BP was observed in the 1L-PEG/AS group (85% vs. 62%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The 1L-PEG/AS regimen was comparable to the 2L-PEG/A regimen in terms of BP adequacy, requiring lower BP solution volumes, with better patient tolerance. Thus, it may be a suitable alternative to the conventional BP solution for colonoscopy. The Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT1051220043).

A multicenter randomized phase 4 trial comparing sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The PRECOL trial

BACKGROUND

Adequate bowel preparation before colonoscopy is crucial. Unfortunately, 25% of colonoscopies have inadequate bowel cleansing. From a patient perspective, bowel preparation is the main obstacle to colonoscopy. Several low-volume bowel preparations have been formulated to provide more tolerable purgative solutions without loss of efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

Investigate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Sodium Picosulphate plus Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) vs. Polyethylene Glycol plus Ascorbic Acid (PEG-ASC) solutions in patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this phase 4, randomized, multicenter, two-arm trial, adult outpatients received either SPMC or PEG-ASC for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. The primary aims were quality of bowel cleansing (primary endpoint scored according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale) and patient acceptance (measured with six visual analogue scales). The study was open for treatment assignment and blinded for primary endpoint assessment. This was done independently with videotaped colonoscopies reviewed by two endoscopists unaware of study arms. A sample size of 525 patients was calculated to recognize a difference of 10% in the proportion of successes between the arms with a two-sided alpha error of 0.05 and 90% statistical power.

RESULTS

Overall 550 subjects (279 assigned to PEG-ASC and 271 assigned to SPMC) represented the analysis population. There was no statistically significant difference in success rate according to BBPS: 94.4% with PEG-ASC and 95.7% with SPMC (P = 0.49). Acceptance and willing to repeat colonoscopy were significantly better for SPMC with all the scales. Compliance was less than full in 6.6 and 9.9% of cases with PEG-ASC and SPMC, respectively (P = 0.17). Nausea and meteorism were significantly more bothersome with PEG-ASC than SPMC. There were no serious adverse events in either group.

CONCLUSION

SPMC and PEG-ASC are not different in terms of efficacy, but SPMC is better tolerated than PEG-ASC. SPMC could be an alternative to low-volume PEG based purgative solutions for bowel preparation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

[ClinicalTrials.gov], Identifier [NCT01649674 and EudraCT 2011-000587-10].

Evaluating patient acceptability and bowel preparation efficacy of sodium picosulfate‐magnesium citrate for colonoscopy

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

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.

Novel frontiers of agents for bowel cleansing for colonoscopy

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is characterized by rapid declines in the wake of widespread screening. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for CRC screening, but its accuracy is related to high quality of bowel preparation (BP). In this review, we aimed to summarized the current strategy to increase bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Newly bowel cleansing agents were developed with the same efficacy of previous agent but requiring less amount of liquid to improve patients' acceptability. The role of the diet before colonoscopy was also changed, as well the contribution of educational intervention and the use of adjunctive drugs to improve patients' tolerance and/or quality of BP. The review also described BP in special situations, as lower gastrointestinal bleeding, elderly people, patients with chronic kidney disease, patients with inflammatory bowel disease, patients with congestive heart failure, inpatient, patient with previous bowel resection, pregnant/lactating patients. The review underlined the quality of BP should be described using a validate scale in colonoscopy report and it explored the available scales. Finally, the review explored the possible contribution of bowel cleansing in post-colonoscopy syndrome that can be related by a transient alteration of gut microbiota. Moreover, the study underlined several points needed to further investigations.

Split-dose 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbate is non-inferior to split-dose PEG with sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate with similar tolerability: a randomized study

Background and Aim

Post‐marketing studies comparing low‐volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)‐based regimens are limited. This randomized study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a novel 1‐L low‐volume PEG‐based preparation: 1 L PEG+Asc (PEG3350, sodium ascorbate, sodium sulfate, ascorbic acid, sodium chloride, and potassium chloride) with PEG+SPMC (PEG3350, sodium chloride, potassium chloride and sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, citric acid, and aspartame), prior to routine colonoscopy at an Australian tertiary referral center.

Methods

Outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either split‐dose 1 L PEG+Asc or split‐dose PEG+SPMC. Bowel preparation quality using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BPPS), modified Aronchick scores, procedure time, cecal intubation, and adenoma detection rates were recorded. Patient compliance and tolerability were captured using a standardized questionnaire.

Results

A total of 173 patients were randomized, of whom 164 completed the study and were allocated to 1 L PEG+Asc (n = 82) or PEG+SPMC (n = 82). Non‐inferiority of 1 L PEG+Asc was demonstrated with 89% achieving successful preparation (total BPPS ≥6 and each sub‐score ≥2) compared with 85.4% in the PEG+SPMC group, resulting in an estimated difference of 3.7% (95% CI −6.6% to 13.9%). The median BBPS was non‐inferior in all colonic segments with 1 L PEG+Asc (BBPS 3 [interquartile range 2–3]) vs PEG+SPMC (BBPS 2 [interquartile range 2–3]). More 1 L PEG+Asc patients reported moderate to severe nausea (P = 0.028), but overall tolerability was similar.

Conclusions

The quality of bowel preparation achieved with 1 L PEG+Asc is non‐inferior to that with PEG+SPMC, with similar tolerability outcomes. Further studies are required in patients at risk of suboptimal bowel preparation.

A randomized controlled trial of high volume simethicone to improve visualization during capsule endoscopy

Background

The optimal dose of simethicone before capsule endoscopy is unknown. Prior studies have reported inconsistent cleansing, with some showing improved visualization only in the proximal small intestine. We hypothesized a higher volume of simethicone may improve cleansing and diagnostic yield, especially in the distal small bowel.

Methods

A phase III randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing high volume (1125 mg simethicone in 750 ml water) versus standard volume (300 mg simethicone in 200 ml water) solutions, both at 1.5 mg/ml. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a KOrea-CanaDA (KODA) score >2.25, overall and stratified by the proximal and distal half of the small bowel. Secondary outcomes included mean KODA score, diagnostic yield, completion rate, and adverse events. All analyses were intention-to-treat.

Results

A total of 167 patients were randomized (mean (SD) age 58.7 (15.7), 54% female) and the most common indication was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (71.7%). Adequate cleansing was achieved in 39 (50%) patients in the high volume group and in 39 (48%) patients in the standard volume group (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.76–1.43, p = 0.82), with no differences observed in the proximal half (71% vs 64%, p = 0.40) or the distal half -of the small bowel (36% vs. 37%, p = 0.88). There was no differences in the mean (SD) KODA score (2.20 (0.41) vs. 2.18 (0.44), p = 0.73), diagnostic yields (53% vs. 56%, p = 0.71), or completion rates (both 95%). One adverse event, nausea, occurred in the control group.

Conclusion

High volume simethicone does not improve visualization during capsule endoscopy.

Clinical trial registration

Clinical trial:NCT02334631.

Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopy is the gold standard exam for evaluation of colonic abnormalities and for screening and surveillance for colorectal cancer. However, the efficacy of colonoscopy is dependent on the quality of the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) have emerged as two of the most commonly used bowel preparation agents. We conducted an evidence-based review of current evidence to further investigate the efficacy and patient tolerability of split-dose SPMC oral solution compared to PEG solution for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Pubmed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. All studies on split-dose bowel preparation with SPMC and PEG were reviewed. Relevant studies regarding colonoscopy and bowel preparations were also included. Randomized controlled trials were prioritized due to the high quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials were included. Split-dose SPMC and PEG were associated with similar results for adequacy of bowel preparation. Split-dose SPMC was associated with increased patient tolerability and compliance.

CONCLUSION

Split-dose SPMC and PEG are both adequate and safe for bowel preparation for outpatient colonoscopy, with split-dose SPMC being more tolerable for patients. Additional RCTs comparing these and other bowel preparation solutions are necessary to further investigate quality of bowel preparation, patient preference, and cost-effectiveness of the various options.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Prucalopride in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Adequate bowel preparation is a vital determinant for the success of colonoscopy. However, individuals who undergo bowel preparation for colonoscopy can experience major discomfort. To solve this problem, adding prucalopride to the prepared solution may reduce intake volume, decreasing discomfort and side effects. We performed meta-analyses and systematic review of available randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the overall relative risk and 95% confidence intervals in the combined studies for the assessment of primary outcome, which is the efficacy of bowel preparation with the addition of prucalopride.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials involving 581 patients were included. When data were pooled for all patients in two non-inferiority studies, no significant difference in the quality of bowel preparation was observed between patients receiving prucalopride plus bowel preparation solution at a lower volume and those receiving the existing solution (relative risk: 0.94; 95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.03). The effects of prucalopride on acceptability, adverse events, adenoma detection rate, and polyp detection rate did not significantly differ from those of traditional solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of prucalopride and bowel preparation solution at a lower volume has similar effects on bowel preparation, and its use did not increase the occurrence of adverse effects.

Development and validation of novel nomograms for predicting the survival of patients after surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Background/Aims

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with high mortality, even after surgical resection. The existing predictive models for survival have limitations. This study aimed to develop better nomograms for predicting overall survival (OS) and cancer‐specific survival (CSS) in PDAC patients after surgery.

Methods

A total of 6323 PDAC patients were retrospectively recruited from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database and randomly allocated into training, validation, and test cohorts. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify significant independent factors for OS and CSS, which were used for construction of nomograms. The performance was evaluated, validated, and compared with that of the 8th edition AJCC staging system.

Results

Ten independent factors were significantly correlated with OS and CSS. The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year OS rates were 40%, 20%, and 15%, and 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year CSS rates were 45%, 24%, and 19%, respectively. The nomograms were calibrated well, with c‐indexes of 0.640 for OS and 0.643 for CSS, respectively. Notably, relative to the 8th edition AJCC staging system, the nomograms were able to stratify each AJCC stage into three prognostic subgroups for more robust risk stratification. Furthermore, the nomograms achieved significant clinical validity, exhibiting wide threshold probabilities and high net benefit. Performance assessment also showed high predictive accuracy and reliability.

Conclusions

The predictive ability and reliability of the established nomograms have been validated, and therefore, these nomograms hold potential as novel approaches to predicting survival and assessing survival risks for PDAC patients after surgery.

Colonic stents for malignant bowel obstruction: current status and future prospects

Introduction: Although more than two decades are already passed from the first description of this technique, the debate remains open on the role of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) placement in the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). According to most recent data, SEMS placement is considered a safe and effective alternative treatment as a bridge to surgery(BTS). In addition, stent placement should be considered as primary option for palliative treatment of obstructing cancer.Areas covered: Current status, indication, technique, oncological outcomes, advantages, and risks of SEMS placement in MBO were reviewed.Expert commentary: The placement of colonic SEMS for palliation and for BTS in patients with MBO has been increasingly reported and it seems to have several advantages over emergency surgery. Substantial concerns of tumor seeding following SEMS placement, especially in case of perforation, have been raised in numerous studies. Actually, no significant differences are reported in oncologic long-term survival between patients undergoing stent placement as a BTS and those undergoing emergency surgery. Considering all the mentioned factors, indication for colorectal stenting should be evaluated only in highly specialized centers, in the context of multidisciplinary approach where risks and benefits of stenting are carefully weighed, especially in the BTS setting.

The Efficacy of Split-Dose Bowel Preparations for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Split-dose bowel preparation leads to superior colon cleansing for colonoscopy. However, the magnitude of benefit in detecting colonic polyps is uncertain. We performed a systematic review to synthesize the data on whether using a split-dose bowel preparation regimen improves the detection of polyps when compared with other dosing methods or regimen products.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases (from the inception to June 2017) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the following: split-dose vs day-before, split-dose vs same-day (as colonoscopy), or different types of split-dose regimens for patients undergoing colonoscopy. We excluded studies limited to inpatients, children, or individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. We compared the number of patients undergoing colonoscopy with recorded detection of polyps, adenomas, advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), right colonic adenomas, right colonic polyps, or right colonic SSPs.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (8,842 participants). Of the seven trials comparing split-dose vs day-before bowel preparation regimens, there was an increased detection rate of adenomas (risk ratio (RR) 1.26, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.10-1.44; 4 trials; 1,258 participants), advanced adenomas (RR 1.53, 95% CI: 1.22-1.92; 3 trials; 1,155 participants), and SSPs (RR 2.48, 95% CI: 1.21-5.09; 2 trials; 1,045 participants). Pooled estimates from 8 trials (1,587 participants) evaluating split-dose vs same-day bowel preparations yielded no evidence of statistical difference. For various split-dose vs split-dose trials, 14 fulfilled the criteria (5,496 participants) and no superior split-regimen was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with day-before bowel preparation regimens, split-dose bowel preparations regimens increase the detection of adenomas, advanced adenomas, and have the greatest benefit in SSP detection.

A randomized clinical prospective trial comparing split-dose picosulfate/ magnesium citrate and polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation

Background

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for the investigation of abnormalities within the colon. However, its success is highly dependent on the quality of bowel preparation. The objective of this study was to compare the bowel preparation efficacy of picosulfate/magnesium citrate (PMC) vs polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a one-day vs two-day split dose regimen.

Methods

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial was conducted at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre in Calgary, Canada. 171 colonoscopy outpatients were randomized to split-dose PMC or PEG lavage as well as into one-day split or two-day split regimens in blocks of eight. Bowel preparation quality was recorded in a blinded manner by the endoscopist using the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS) prior to washing or suctioning. The scale results were analyzed using a two-factor analysis of variance.

Results

141 patients received complete colonoscopies (PMC-71; PEG-70). PEG was found to be superior to PMC (mean OBPS: 4.14 ± 2.64 vs 5.11 ± 3.44, p = 0.019), when adjusted for administration regimen, leading to significantly more adequate bowel preparations (79.7% vs 59.7%, p = 0.007). A two-day split dose was superior to a one-day split dose regimen (mean OBPS: 3.68± 2.82 vs 5.69 ± 3.06, p<0.001). Two-day split dosing also resulted in a better right colon cleanliness score (right bowel OBPS 1.27±0.11 vs 2.10±0.12 for one-day split, P<0.001).

Conclusions

Optimal bowel preparation was achieved with the use of PEG lavage when administered in a two-day split dose regimen. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01415687.

Acute abdominal obstruction: Colon stent or emergency surgery? An evidence-based review

According to the American Cancer Society and Colorectal Cancer Statistics 2017, colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer death in the world in 2018. Previous studies demonstrated that 8%-29% of patients with primary CRC present malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). In the past, emergency surgery has been the primary treatment for MCO, although morbidity and surgical mortality rates are higher in these settings than in elective procedures. In the 1990s, self-expanding metal stents appeared and was a watershed in the treatment of patients in gastrointestinal surgical emergencies. The studies led to high expectations because the use of stents could prevent surgical intervention, such as colostomy, leading to lower morbidity and mortality, possibly resulting in higher quality of life. This review was designed to provide present evidence of the indication, technique, outcomes, benefits, and risks of these treatments in acute MCO through the analysis of previously published studies and current guidelines.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: what is best and necessary for quality?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colonoscopy is recognizably, the best colon cancer prevention test, provided the quality of the preparation is adequate for detection of precancerous polyps but also allowing for accurate identification of margins, thereby facilitating complete endoscopic resection. As there are many aspects effecting colon prep outcomes, it is timely to review new standards for optimizing outcomes, including product selection based on patient demographics.

RECENT FINDINGS

New national guidelines have set a minimum quality threshold for adequacy and also defined a split day delivery for oral options as the "standard of care". Several new prep options have been recently released and these data are discussed.

SUMMARY

Optimizing the quality of colon preps has major implications for clinical practice. Clinicians must recognize new targets for standard of care, providing the best approach for each individual patient, considering variable factors which may otherwise compromise success.

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.

A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of 1-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid plus prucalopride versus 2-L polyethylene glycol solution with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation

OBJECTIVES

Bowel cleansing is a major patient complaint during colonoscopy. Adding laxatives to the bowel preparation is effective in replacing a portion of bowel preparation solution and reducing its volume. Prucalopride is a serotonin receptor agonist that stimulates gastrointestinal motility and provides propulsive force for defecation. This study aimed to compare 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (Asc) plus 2 mg prucalopride (1LP/AP) and 2 L PEG with Asc (2LP/A) for colonoscopy preparation with respect to bowel-cleansing quality and side effects.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized, prospective study was conducted with 260 outpatients administered either 1LP/AP or 2LP/A. The primary endpoint was bowel preparation quality, which was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and Aronchick Bowel Preparation Scale, and the secondary endpoints were patient tolerability and acceptability, assessed by a questionnaire-based survey.

RESULTS

The adequate bowel preparation rates were 88.5% and 83.1% in the 2LP/A and 1LP/AP groups, respectively, and the efficacy of 1LP/AP was equivalent to the control regimen (p=.216). Other colonoscopic variables including adenoma detection rate were similar in both groups. Patient tolerability and acceptability were not significantly different, but patients in the 1LP/AP group were more willing to repeat the same regimen (p=.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel preparation quality with 1LP/AP was equivalent to that with 2LP/A, which did not increase the occurrence of side effects, but it reduced the volume of the solution ingested, and increased patient satisfaction.

Efficacy and tolerability of 2-L polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND/AIM

Previous studies comparing 2-L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solution with ascorbic acid (PEG/Asc) with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SP/MC) drew inconclusive results. This study aimed to compare a 2-L-PEG/Asc with SP/MC by split method in bowel cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and safety and to identify factors influencing inadequate bowel preparation.

METHOD

We performed a prospective randomized, endoscopist-blinded, single-center, controlled trial. The Aronchick scale and Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBPS) were used to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy, and patients' tolerability and preferences were assessed by questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 223 patients were randomized to receive 2-L-PEG/Asc (n = 109) or SP/MC (n = 114). There was no significant difference in overall bowel cleansing efficacy between the two groups; however, when analyzing by individual segment, mean bowel cleansing efficacy of right colon showed a trend in favor of SP/MC group than in PEG/Asc group (OBPS; 1.55 ± 0.66 vs. 1.74 ± 0.88, P = 0.08). Furthermore, SP/MC was better tolerated than PEG/Asc based on ease of consumption and preference to receive the agents again in the future. Total adverse events were significantly lower in SP/MC group than PEG/Asc group (47.4 vs. 62.4%, P = 0.031). In multivariate analysis, later colonoscopic starting time was the only independent factor predicting inadequate bowel preparation (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.156-1.692, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in overall bowel cleansing efficacy between PEG/Asc and SP/MC; however, SP/MC showed better tolerability and safety profile than PEG/Asc. The independent factor for inadequate bowel preparation was later colonoscopic starting time when applied split method.

Efficacy and Safety of Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate for Bowel Preparation in a Physically Disabled Outpatient Population: A Randomized, Endoscopist-Blinded Comparison With Ascorbic Acid-Enriched Polyethylene Glycol Solution Plus Bisacodyl (The PICO-MOVI Study)

BACKGROUND

Because of its volume, adequate bowel preparation remains problematic in physically unfit patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare a small-volume sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate preparation with a 2-L ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl.

DESIGN

This study has a noninferiority design, assuming that ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl is 70% efficacious in achieving an Ottawa score ≤7 and accepting a difference in success rate of <15% with a target enrollment of 146 patients per group.

SETTING

This study was conducted in an outpatient department.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for diagnostic colonoscopy were randomly assigned. Key exclusion criteria were severe kidney disease, ASA class ≥III, and hospital admission.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly assigned to receive sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate or ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl according to a split-dose regimen. Patients in the sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate group received advice on the recommended 4-L fluid intake. Patients in the ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl group received 2 bisacodyl tablets 2 days before and advice on the additionally recommended 2-L fluid intake.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

To assess bowel-cleansing adequacy, the Ottawa, Aronchick, and Boston scores were used. Colonoscopy quality measures were obtained. Safety was assessed for a 30-day follow-up period.

RESULTS

Overall, 341 patients (169 men, mean age 57.0 years; BMI 26.2 kg/m) were included. Comorbidities were present in 76.2% of patients, and 75.4% of patients used medication. An adequate Ottawa score was obtained in 81.4% and 75.8% of patients receiving ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (difference of 5.6% (95% CI, -3.5 to -14.6; p = 0.023)), showing noninferiority of the sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate therapy. Ottawa segmental scores were lower for sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate in the right and transverse colon. In both groups, successful ileocecal intubation was achieved in 95%. No medication-related adverse events were reported.

LIMITATIONS

These results in a physically disabled ambulant population cannot be extrapolated to immobile, hospitalized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate proved to be noninferior to ascorbic acid-enriched polyethylene glycol solution plus bisacodyl in efficacy and safety. Timing of the colonoscopy and addition of bisacodyl to sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate warrants further consideration. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A461.

White Diet with split-dose Picosalax is preferred, better tolerated, and non-inferior to day-before clear fluids with polyethylene glycol plus sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate for morning colonoscopy: A randomized, non-inferiority trial

Background and Aim

Bowel preparations with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and clear fluids are often poorly tolerated. We compared an innovative low‐residue White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax with the standard preparation at our institution of day‐before clear fluids and combination PEG plus sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC).

Methods

Adults undergoing morning colonoscopy were randomized to either the White Diet and split‐dose, two sachets of Picosalax (WD/PICO) or day‐before clear fluids and 1‐L PEG plus two sachets of SPMC (CF/PEG + SPMC). The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation defined by an Ottawa bowel preparation score ≤ 6. An intention‐to‐treat analysis with a predefined non‐inferiority margin of 15% was used to compare efficacy.

Results

A total of 250 patients were randomized (125 WD/PICO and 125 CF/PEG + SPMC). WD/PICO was non‐inferior to CF/PEG + SPMC for successful bowel preparation by intention‐to‐treat analysis (58% WD/PICO vs 62% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −14.2 to 6.2%) and per‐protocol analysis (64% WD/PICO vs 65% CF/PEG + SPMC, 95%CI: −11.3 to 9.4%). Patients in the WD/PICO group reported greater satisfaction with the diet (P < 0.001), greater ease of following the diet (P < 0.001), and improved experience compared with prior colonoscopy (P < 0.0001), less bloating (P = 0.02), less weakness (P = 0.046), less hunger (P < 0.0001), and less interference with daily activities (P = 0.001). Procedure/withdrawal times and adenoma detection rates were similar between groups.

Conclusion

Bowel preparation with the White Diet and low‐volume, split‐dose Picosalax was preferred and better tolerated without detriment to bowel preparation success compared with clear fluids and combination PEG plus SPMC for morning colonoscopy.

Efficacy and safety of PICOPREP tailored dosing compared with PICOPREP day-before dosing for colon cleansing: a multi-centric randomised study

Background and study aims The success of any colonoscopy procedure depends upon the quality of bowel preparation. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a new tailored dosing (TD) regimen compared with the approved PICOPREP day-before dosing regimen (DBD) in the European Union. Patient and methods Patients (≥ 18 years) undergoing colonoscopy were randomised (2:1) to TD (Dose 1, 10 - 18 hours; Dose 2, 4 - 6 hours before colonoscopy) or DBD (Dose 1 before 8:00AM on the day before colonoscopy; Dose 2, 6 - 8 hours after Dose 1). The primary endpoint of overall colon cleansing efficacy was based on total Ottawa Scale (OS) scores (0 - 14, excellent-worst). The key secondary endpoint was a binary endpoint based on the ascending colon OS (success 0 or 1, failure [≥ 2]). Convenience and satisfaction were evaluated similar to the primary and key secondary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. Results Use of the PICOPREP TD regimen resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mean total Ottawa Scale score compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (-3.93, 95 % confidence intervals [CI]: - 4.99, - 2.97; P < 0.0001) in the intent-to-treat analysis set. The PICOPREP TD regimen also resulted in a statistically significant increase in the odds of achieving an ascending colon OS score ≤ 1, compared to the PICOPREP DBD regimen (estimated odds ratio 9.18, 95 % CI: 4.36, 19.32; P < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (12 % (TD) and 5.7 % (DBD), respectively, P = 0.2988). The convenience and satisfaction were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion The TD regimen was superior to the DBD regimen for overall and ascending colon cleansing efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02239692.

Improving of bowel cleansing effect for polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid using simethicone: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid (PEG-Asc) use is reported to be as safe and effective as traditional 4-L polyethylene glycol use. However, PEG-Asc produces bubbles, which cause problems during colonoscopy. Data on the effects of using antifoaming agents such as simethicone with PEG-Asc are lacking. The aim of this CONSORT-prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, controlled trial is to compare the quality of bowel preparation and compliance between PEG-Asc users and PEG-Asc plus simethicone users.

METHODS

Adult outpatients aged 18 to 80 years undergoing colonoscopy were recruited to the study. Two hundred sixty patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment arms, PEG-Asc or PEG-Asc plus simethicone. The primary outcome measure was the bowel cleansing quality using Boston bowel preparation scale and bubble scores. The secondary outcome measures were patient tolerability and doctor tolerability.

RESULTS

The simethicone group showed superior cleansing results (6-9 Boston scale scores: 99% vs. 84%, <5% bubble scores: 96% vs. 49%, P < 0.001) and fewer gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal fullness: 24% vs. 55%, colicky pain: 5% vs. 24%, P < 0.001) than the non-simethicone group. Moreover, endoscopist fatigue during colonoscopy was lower in the simethicone group than in the non-simethicone group (1.31 ± 0.75 vs. 2.97 ± 2.14, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PEG-Asc plus simethicone use was more effective and associated with better patient and endoscopist tolerance than PEG-Asc use. Therefore, this combination is recommended as one of the promising methods for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualization

Colonoscopy is an important screening and therapeutic modality for colorectal cancer. Unlike other screening tests, colonoscopy is dependent on pre-procedure bowel preparation. If the bowel preparation is poor, significant pathology may be missed. Many factors are known to improve bowel preparation. This review will highlight those factors that may optimize the bowel preparation, including choice of bowel preparation, grading or scoring of the bowel preparation, special factors that influence preparation, and diet prior to colonoscopy that affects bowel preparation. The aim of the review is to offer suggestions and guide endoscopists on how to optimize the bowel preparation for the patients undergoing colonoscopy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) drew inconsistent conclusions. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of the two agents for colonoscopy preparation.

METHODS

A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2015 was acquired, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. We calculated the pooled estimates of bowel cleanliness, polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR), completion of preparation, willingness to repeat identical bowel preparation, and adverse events by using relative risk (RR) with random-effects models. A non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing SPMC to PEG for bowel cleaning efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs were qualified for analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two agents in bowel cleanliness, but the effect direction showed a trend in favor of PEG (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.86-1.01, P = 0.07). The non-inferiority analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of SPMC by retaining at least 90 % of the effect of PEG. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two agents in PDR (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.82-1.08, P = 0.37) and ADR (RR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.74-1.05, P = 0.16). However, a higher proportion of patients were likely to complete SPMC preparation (RR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.04-1.13, P < 0.001) and were willing to repeat SPMC preparation (RR 1.44; 95 % CI 1.25-1.67, P < 0.001). The total number of adverse events was significantly lower in the SPMC group (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.66-0.93, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

SPMC, with better tolerability and less frequent adverse events, demonstrated non-inferior bowel cleaning efficacy than that of the PEG. Large-scale, well-organized, head-to-head studies are warranted.

Single-day sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate versus split-dose polyethylene glycol for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: A prospective randomized endoscopist-blinded trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The intake of polyethylene glycol (PEG) prior colonoscopy is frequently associated with nausea and abdominal discomfort. The aim of this study was to investigate whether sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (PMC) is superior to a polyethylene glycol (PEG) preparation in regard to patient acceptance. Furthermore, it investigates possible differences in efficiency and patient safety.

METHODS

In a randomised, prospective, and endoscopist-blinded study patients were 1:1 randomized to either use PMC or 4-L PEG in order to prepare for colonoscopy. Cleansing regimes consisted of a split-dose administration in the PEG arm and standard administration in the PMC arm. Primary end point was proportion of patients evaluating the bowel preparation procedure as "very distressing," defined as ≥ 8 points on a 10-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Secondary end points were quality of bowel preparation and electrolyte parameters.

RESULTS

PMC bowel-cleansing procedure was better tolerated compared with PEG (PMC(NRS<8)  = 89.9% vs PEG(NRS<8)  = 79.2%, P = 0.037). Mean declines in serum sodium (ΔSodium(PEG)  = -0.76 ± 3.07 vs ΔSodium(PMC)  = -3.38 ± 3.56 mmol/L; P < 0.001), chloride (ΔChloride(PEG)  = -1.00 ± 3.22 vs ΔChloride(PMC)  = -3.49 ± 3.51 mmol/L; P < 0.001), and osmolality (ΔOsmolality(PEG)  = -4.23 ± 6.82 vs ΔOsmolality(PMC)  = -8.83 ± 7.43 mosmol/kg; P < 0.001) were higher in the PMC arm than in the PEG arm. Hyponatremia after bowel preparation occurred more often in PMC (21.2%) than in PEG (4.0%) (P < 0.001). Successful preparation was achieved more frequently in the PEG arm (42.9% vs 82.2%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Standard picosulfate/magnesium citrate is better accepted than a split-dose PEG regimen. From the perspective of successful preparation and patients' safety, PEG is superior to PMC.

A randomized trial to compare the efficacy and tolerability of sodium picosulfate-magnesium citrate solution vs. 4 L polyethylene glycol solution as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and acceptability of an evening-before regimens of sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) as bowel cleansers and to explore the results of a same-day regimen of SPMC.

METHODS

Multicenter, randomized, observer-blinded, parallel study carried out in subjects who were 18-80 years old and were undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy for the first time. The primary outcome was treatment success, which was a composite outcome defined by (1) the evaluation of the overall preparation quality as "excellent" or "good" by two blinded independent evaluators with the Fleet(®) Grading Scale for Bowel Cleansing and (2) a subject's acceptability rating of "easy to take" or "tolerable." The primary outcome was analyzed using a logistic regression with site, gender, and age group (age ≥65 years and <65 years) as factors.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety subjects were included in the efficacy evaluation. Although treatment success was significantly higher in subjects assigned to the evening-before regimen of SPMC vs. subjects assigned to the evening-before PEG, when evaluating the two individual components for treatment success, there were significant differences in the ease of completion but not in the quality of preparation. The same-day SPMC regimen was superior to both the evening-before regimen of SPMC and PEG in terms of the quality of preparation, especially regarding the proximal colon.

CONCLUSIONS

An evening-before regimen of SPMC is superior to an evening-before regimen of PEG in terms of subject's acceptability. The same-day SPMC regimen provides better cleansing levels in the proximal colon.