Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of Low-Volume Bowel Preparations for Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: The French Multicentre CLEAN Study

Emerging space for non-polyethene-glycol bowel preparations in inflammatory bowel disease-related colonoscopy: Veering toward better adherence and palatability

Patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) require repeated endoscopic evaluations over time by colonoscopy to weigh disease activity but also for different and additional indications (e.g., evaluation of postoperative recurrence, colorectal cancer surveillance). Colonoscopy, however, requires adequate bowel preparation to be of quality. The latter is achieved as long as the patient takes a certain amount of product to have a number of bowel movements suitable to clean the colon and allow optimal visualization of the mucosa during endoscopy. However, significant guidelines recommend preparations for patients with IBD not excelling in palatability. This recommendation originates from the fact that most of the studies conducted on bowel preparations in patients with IBD have been done with isosmolar preparations based on polyethylene glycol (PEG), for which, therefore, more safety data exist. As a result, the low-volume non-PEG preparations (e.g., magnesium citrate plus picosulphate, oral sulphate solutions) have been set aside for the whole range of warnings to be heeded because of their hyperosmolarity. New studies, however, are emerging, leaning in overall for a paradigm shift in this matter. Indeed, such non-PEG preparations seem to show a particularly encouraging and engaging safety profile when considering their broad potential for tolerability and patient preference. Indeed, such evidence is insufficient to indicate such preparations in all patients with IBD but may pave the way for those with remission or well-controlled disease. This article summarizes the central studies conducted in IBD settings using non-PEG preparations by discussing their results.

Noninvasive Assessment of Postoperative Disease Recurrence in Crohn's Disease: A Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study on Behalf of the Italian Group for Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colonoscopy (CS) is the gold standard to assess postoperative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD). However, CS is invasive and may be poorly tolerated by patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of a noninvasive approach in detecting POR, using the endoscopic Rutgeerts' score (RS) as the reference standard.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with CD who underwent ileo-cecal resection were prospectively enrolled in 3 referral Italian centers. Patients underwent CS and bowel ultrasound within 1 year of surgery. Uni- and multivariable analyses were used to assess the correlation between noninvasive parameters and endoscopic recurrence, defined by a RS ≥2.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were enrolled. Sixty patients (66%) experienced endoscopic POR. The multivariable analysis identified bowel wall thickness (BWT) per 1-mm increase (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-4.89; P = .012), the presence of mesenteric lymph nodes (OR, 15.63; 95% CI, 1.48-164.54; P = .022), and fecal calprotectin (FC) values ≥50 mcg/g (OR, 8.58; 95% CI, 2.45-29.99; P < .001) as independent predictors for endoscopic recurrence. The presence of lymph nodes or the combination of BWT ≥3 mm and FC values ≥50 mcg/g correctly classified 56% and 75% of patients, with less than 5% of patients falsely classified as having endoscopic recurrence. Conversely, the combination of BWT <3 mm and FC <50 mcg/g correctly classified 74% of patients with only 4.5% of patients falsely classified as not having endoscopic recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

A noninvasive approach combining bowel ultrasound and FC can be used with confidence for detecting POR in patients with CD without the requirement for CS.

Effectiveness of Water-Assisted Colonoscopy without Sedation in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis

BACKGROUND

Studies have found that water-assisted colonoscopy (WAC) including water immersion colonoscopy (WIC) and water exchange colonoscopy (WEC) is superior to air insufflation colonoscopy (AIC) in terms of the cecal intubation rate. However, the application of WAC in ulcerative colitis (UC) has rarely been reported. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of WAC without sedation in patients with UC.

METHODS

One hundred and seventy-two UC patients were randomly divided into the AIC group (n = 56), WIC group (n = 58), and WEC group (n = 58). The cecal intubation rate, abdominal pain score, operator difficulty, bowel cleanliness, insertion, and total time were compared.

RESULTS

The cecal intubation rate was higher in the WIC (91.4% vs. 75.0%; mean difference = 16.4%; 95% CI: 3.0-29.8%) and WEC (93.1% vs. 75.0%; mean difference = 18.1%; 95% CI: 5.0-31.2%) compared to the AIC group, while there was no difference between the WIC and WEC groups. The abdominal pain score and operator difficulty were lower in the WIC and WEC groups than in the AIC group, while there was no difference between the WIC and WEC groups. The bowel cleanliness during withdrawal was higher in the WIC and WEC groups than in the AIC group, while the WEC was superior to WIC. Compared with the AIC and WIC groups, the insertion time and total time were longer in the WEC group, and there was no difference in the AIC group and WIC group.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with AIC, WAC can increase the cecal intubation rate, reduce abdominal pain scores and improve bowel cleanliness in patients with UC.

Quality of bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing colonoscopy: What factors to consider?

An adequate bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a prerequisite for successful colonoscopy for screening, diagnosis, and surveillance. Several bowel preparation formulations are available, both high- and low-volume based on polyethylene glycol. Generally, low-volume formulations are also based on several compounds such as magnesium citrate preparations with sodium picosulphate, oral sulphate solution, and oral sodium phosphate-based solutions. Targeted studies on the quality of bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy in the IBD population are still required, with current evidence from existing studies being inconclusive. New frontiers are also moving towards the use of alternatives to anterograde ones, using preparations based on retrograde colonic lavage.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating three low-volume preparations for colonoscopy in outpatients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: the EII-PREP trial

BACKGROUND

Data regarding bowel preparation in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) are scarce.

AIM

To compare efficacy, safety, and tolerability of low-volume preparations in patients with IBD.

METHODS

Single-center, randomized, prescriber, and colonoscopist-blinded clinical trial. IBD outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 1 Liter-polyethylene glycol-ascorbate (1L-PEG), 2 Liters-PEG, or sodium picosulfate (SP). The primary endpoint was percentage of quality cleansing assessed via the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS ≥6, segments ≥2). Secondary endpoints were total high quality cleansing (BBPS 8 or 9), high-quality segmental BBPS (≥2), and patients' tolerability, symptoms, and satisfaction, assessed by questionnaires. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting, laboratory evaluation at colonoscopy, and telephonic follow-up.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were included (33 1L-PEG, 28 2L-PEG, and 31 SP). No significant differences between preparations were observed in quality or high-quality total BBPS or high-quality segmental BBPS. Complete intake of the solution was higher for SP (p = 0.006) and lower for 1L-PEG (p = 0.02) compared to 2L-PEG intake (p = 0.55). Clinically irrelevant hyponatremia was higher in the SP group (p < 0.0001). SP instructions were easier to understand from patient's point of view (p = 0.01). Willingness to retake was higher with SP (p < 0.0001) and less for 1L-PEG (p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed no differences in efficacy between low-volume preparations in patients with IBD. Complete intake was higher for SP and lower for 1L-PEG. SP and 2L-PEG instructions were better understood and graded, and SP was more likely to be retaken. Willingness to retake was lower for 1L-PEG. No serious adverse events were reported.

SUMMARY

No differences in terms of efficacy were regarded in this clinical trial comparing low-volume preparations for colonoscopy in patients with IBD: however, Sodium Pisoculfate is better tolerated and accepted from patient's point of view. No serious adverse events were reported.

An Expert Consensus to Standardize Assessment of Bowel Cleansing for Clinical Trials of Bowel Preparations for Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND

Despite regular need for colonoscopy in patients with Crohn's disease (CD), the efficacy and tolerability of bowel preparation (BP) agents is rarely assessed in this population. Assessing BP quality with existing scales may be challenging in CD due to presence of inflammation, bowel resection, and strictures.

AIMS

To provide recommendations for assessing BP quality in clinical trials for CD using a modified Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness process.

METHODS

Based on systematic reviews and a literature search, 110 statements relating to BP quality assessment in CD were developed. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists rated the statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate using a 9-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Panelists considered it appropriate that central readers, either alone or with local assessment, score BP quality in clinical trials. Central readers should be trained on scoring BP quality and local endoscopists on performing high-quality video recording. Both endoscope insertion and withdrawal phases should be reviewed to score BP quality in each colonic segment and segments should align with endoscopic disease activity indices. The Harefield Cleansing Scale and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale were considered appropriate. The final score should be calculated as the average of all visualized segments. Both total and worst segment scores should also be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a framework for assessing BP quality in patients with CD based on expert feedback. This framework could support the development or refinement of BP quality scales and the integration of BP quality assessment in future CD studies.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral sulphate tablet for bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A multicentre randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We evaluated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of novel oral sulphate tablets [OSTs] vs 2 L of polyethylene glycol and ascorbate [PEG/Asc] in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD].

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 110 patients with clinically inactive IBD were enrolled in this single-blind multicentre non-inferiority study. Patients were randomly assigned to the OST or 2 L PEG/Asc group and we applied a split-dose regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was bowel cleansing success rate defined as Harefield Cleansing Scale Grade A or B. The secondary endpoints were perfect preparation rate, the presence of air bubbles, safety as assessed by laboratory abnormalities and self-reported adverse events, or IBD symptom flare-ups. Tolerability was assessed by a pre-procedural visual analog scale [VAS] interview.

RESULTS

Both groups showed high cleansing success rates [98.1%] and there was no significant difference in perfect preparation rate. The proportion of a bubble score 0 was significantly higher in the OST group [94.5% vs 50.0%, p < 0.001]. There was no significant intergroup difference in vomiting or bloating. Symptom flare-ups occurred in two OST group patients. No clinically significant blood test abnormalities were noted in either group. Ease of ingestion and taste scores were significantly higher in the OST group. More patients in the OST group [94.5%] wanted to take the same preparation agent for their next colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OST and 2 L PEG/Asc demonstrated high successful cleansing and safety in patients with inactive IBD. OST achieved higher satisfaction than 2 L PEG/Asc. Our results suggest that the OST split-dose regimen is effective and safe for patients with inactive IBD.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Two Different Low-Volume Split-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Electrolytes Solution Bowel Preparation for Morning Colonoscopy

METHODS

A total of 120 patients were randomized to receive either the control group (n = 64) or the experimental group (n = 65). Patients in the control group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen one, and patients in the experimental group adopted the low-volume split-dose regimen two. Those randomized to regimen one were instructed to take 0.75 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 1.5 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. Patients assigned to regimen two were invited to consume 1.5 L PEG two hours after dinner the day before the colonoscopy and 0.75 L PEG 4 hours before the colonoscopy. The quality of bowel preparation, rated according to a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), represented the primary outcome measure. Tolerability, satisfaction, and lesions detection rated were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the transverse colon and right colon scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). The low-volume split-dose regimen two showed a higher success rate for cleansing of the right colon and overall colon (P < 0.05). For the comparison of the patients' bowel tolerance, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding thirst, abdominal pain or abdominal discomfort, abdominal distension, dizziness or headache, anal discomfort, and sleep disturbance (P > 0.05). However, regimen two had significantly less nausea, vomiting, and fatigue than regimen one (24.62% vs. 42.19%, P=0.034; 10.77% vs. 25.00%, P=0.035; 6.15% vs. 21.88%, P=0.010, respectively). Patient-reported satisfaction and willingness to repeat the bowel preparation were significantly higher for low-volume split-dose regimen two than for low-volume split-dose regimen one (P=0.011; P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

In early morning colonoscopies, the bowel-cleansing efficacy and patient tolerability of low-volume split-dose regimen two were superior to low-volume split-dose regimen one.

Supplementary education can improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials

Background

Colonoscopy is widely used for the screening, diagnosis and treatment of intestinal diseases. Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for high-quality colonoscopy. However, the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients is low. Several studies on supplementary education methods have been conducted to improve the rate of adequate bowel preparation in outpatients. However, the controversial results presented encourage us to perform this meta-analysis.

Method

According to the PRISMA statement (2020), the meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO. We searched all studies up to August 28, 2021, in the three major electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate, and the secondary outcomes included bowel preparation quality score, polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, nonattendance rate and willingness to repeat rate. If there was obvious heterogeneity, the funnel plot combined with Egger’s test, meta-regression analysis, sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were used to detect the source of heterogeneity. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 17.0 software were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 2061 records were retrieved, and 21 full texts were ultimately included in the analysis. Our meta-analysis shows that supplementary education can increase the rate of adequate bowel preparation for outpatients (79.9% vs 72.9%, RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08–1.20, I² = 87%, p<0.00001). Supplementary education shortened the withdrawal time (MD: -0.80, 95% CI: -1.54 to -0.05, p = 0.04) of outpatients, increased the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.44, p<0.00001), reduced the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (MD: -1.26, 95% CI: -1.66 to -0.86, p<0.00001) and increased the willingness to repeat (91.9% vs 81.4%, RR:1.14, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.25, p = 0.004).

Conclusion

Supplementary education for outpatients based on the standard of care can significantly improve the quality of bowel preparation.

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

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Efficacy and tolerability of very low-volume bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases

OBJECTIVES

An adequate bowel preparation is essential for a quality colonoscopy. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) show low compliance with bowel preparation due to the large volume of lavage solution to be ingested, especially if active symptoms are present, and the frequency of having a colonoscopy. We evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of a very low-volume (VLV) polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solution in patients with IBD.

METHODS

A cohort of 103 consecutive patients, 56 with Crohn's disease and 47 with ulcerative colitis, received a 1-L PEG-based bowel preparation divided into two 500-mL doses taken the evening before and the morning of the colonoscopy, each dose followed by at least another 500-mL of clear fluids. Colon cleansing was scored according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and evaluated in relation to influencing variables.

RESULTS

Bowel cleansing was adequate (BBPS ≥ 6) in 88 patients (85.4%). The time interval between the end of bowel preparation and the beginning of colonoscopy and the disease activity significantly affected colon cleansing. Most patients declared a complete intake of lavage solution (99%), the willingness to repeat the same bowel preparation in a future colonoscopy (86.4%), and a good taste assessment.

CONCLUSION

The VLV PEG-based bowel preparation is effective and well accepted by IBD patients. As minimizing the volume of lavage solution required, the VLV-bowel preparation here tested could be of choice in subjects who perform periodically colonoscopy or in those who do not tolerate a larger amount of liquids.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of a split-dose bowel cleansing regimen of magnesium citrate with sodium picosulfate - a phase IV clinical observational study

BACKGROUND

There are contradictory results about the effect of magnesium citrate plus sodium picosulfate bowel cleansing agents on the fluid and electrolyte balance. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the efficacy, tolerability and safety of this medication in colonoscopy preparation.

METHODS

233 patients were enrolled in this phase IV prospective observational study. The effectiveness of bowel cleansing was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Adequate cleansing was defined as BBPS ≥ 6 and excellent cleansing as BBPS > 7. Tolerability was examined using a standardized questionnaire. In the safety analysis, the change of serum electrolytes levels and renal function during bowel cleansing was assessed.

RESULTS

Adequate and excellent bowel cleansing were achieved 94.85% and 72.96% of cases, respectively. None or very mild symptoms were reported in 47.21% of cases. Statistically significant changes occurred in serum potassium (4.38±0.43 vs. 4.25±0.43 mmol/L, p<0.0001), urea (4.86±1.37 vs. 3.84±1.43 mmol/L, p<0.0001) and creatinine (male: 81.07±16.02 vs. 84.54±15.11 μmol/L; female: 69.32±12.22 vs. 72.96±12.11 μmol/L, p<0.0001) levels during the colonoscopy preparation. However, the number of patients with values outside of the normal range increased significantly only in the case of serum urea (3.95% vs. 26.97%, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Magnesium citrate with sodium picosulfate is outstandingly effective, well tolerated and a safe agent in colonoscopy preparation. It caused significant, but non-clinically relevant changes in serum electrolytes levels and renal function.

Tolerability of Bowel Preparation and Colonoscopy in IBD Patients: Results From a Prospective, Single-Center, Case-Control Study

Background

Endoscopy plays a fundamental role in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of bowel preparation and colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) patients compared to subjects participating in a colorectal cancer population screening program.

Methods

Consecutive enrolment of CD and UC patients and screening subjects (SS) undergoing colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was done by split dose of 2 L PEG-ELS + simethicone. We recorded endoscopic, clinical, and demographic features; cleanliness rating using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); and sedation doses. Bowel-preparation tolerability, discomfort, and pain during colonoscopy were assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale from 0 to 100 mm.

Results

Sixty-three UC (mean age 49.9 ± 14.9 years), 63 CD (mean age 44.0 ± 14.0 years), and 63 SS (mean age 59.9 ± 6.3 years) patients were enrolled. Bowel preparation was similarly tolerated in UC, CD, and SS (P = 0.397). A complete colonoscopy was similarly performed in UC (59/63, 93.7%), CD (58/63, 92.1%), and SS (60/63, 95.2%) (P = 0.364). The BBPS did not show significant differences between UC (6.2 ± 1.6), CD (6.1 ± 1.3), and SS (6.2 ± 1.4) (P = 0.824). The need to increase sedation doses was significantly higher in CD (24/63, 38.1%) and UC (16/63, 25.4%) than in SS (4/63, 6.3%) (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Bowel preparation is equally tolerated and efficacious in IBD patients and in healthy SS. In IBD, higher sedation doses are needed to guarantee an equally tolerated colonoscopy.