Single-Dose Linaclotide Is Equal in Efficacy to Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation Prior to Capsule Endoscopy

Linaclotide combined with polyethylene glycol regimen for bowel preparation in patients with chronic constipation: A prospective randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

The standard of bowel preparation sometimes is not met by using the 3 L polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) method in patients with chronic constipation, which significantly impacts the diagnosis of colorectal diseases. Linaclotide can be utilized for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation. It is worth investigating whether linaclotide combined with 3 L PEG regimen can further optimize intestinal preparation in patients with chronic constipation.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and comfort of linaclotide combined with PEG for bowel preparation in patients with chronic constipation by comparing with PEG.

METHODS

From July 2021 to December 2022, 120 patients with chronic constipation who underwent colonoscopy at the Department of Gastroenterology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University were selected as research subjects. Using the random number table method, the patients were randomly divided into either a control group or an observation group. Both groups were given 3 L PEG and methylene silicone oil, and the observation group was additionally given three linaclotide capsules. The score of Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), colonoscopy entry time, the detection rate of polyps or adenomas, and the incidence of adverse reactions were compared between two groups. Independent sample t test and χ² test were used for statistical comparisons.

RESULTS

The BBPS scores of the right segment, the middle segment, and the left segment, as well as the BBPS score of the overall bowel were higher in the observation group (P < 0.05). The colonoscopy entry time was shorter in the observation group (P < 0.05). The detection rates of polyps and adenomas (22% [11/50] vs 46% [23/50]; 14% [7/50] vs 32% [16/50]) differed significantly between the control group and observation group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was significantly shorter than that of the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the 3 L PEG method, linaclotide combined with 3 L PEG regimen can achieve better bowel preparation effect, reduce the incidence of adverse reactions, and has higher safety, which is worthy of further clinical promotion.

Small bowel cleansing for capsule endoscopy, systematic review and meta- analysis: Timing is the real issue

BACKGROUND

The optimal small bowel preparation modality before capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is still uncertain, regarding preparation type, dose and timing of administration.

AIM

The aim of the study is to evaluate the small bowel cleansing in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy after fasting alone or active treatment with purgative solutions.

METHODS

We searched 4 major scientific databases from inception to December 2021 for studies evaluating small bowel preparation before SBCE. Different preparation efficacy was compared using fasting as reference. Main variables evaluated in the current study were: preparation type, administration schedule and timing.

RESULTS

17 studies (27 treatment arms) with 2372 patients (male 47,4%) were included, mean age 54 years. Fasting alone VS overall purgative preparations pooled rate difference (RD) was 0.15 I2=81.5% p: 0.000. Sub-analysis for preparation schedule (day-before, split and same-day) and the time lapse showed that administration of PEG after the ingestion of capsule had the highest rate of adequate small bowel cleansing with a RD 0.33, administration between 1 and 6 h before SBCE had a RD 0.28, 6 to 12 h had a RD 0.21 and ≥12 h had a RD 0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of ingestion was found to be critical for bowel cleansing; the shorter time laps between the ingestion last dose of laxative and SBCE, the better was the mucosal visualization.

A novel ultra-low-volume regimen combining 1 L polyethylene glycol and linaclotide versus 2 L polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy cleansing in low-risk individuals: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The single dose of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) has shown high cleaning efficacy and tolerability in low-risk patients. However, the dosage of this regimen is still challenging for many patients. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a novel ultra-low-volume regimen using 1 L PEG and linaclotide (1 L PEG+L) versus a single dose of 2 L PEG in low-risk patients.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, multicenter study, low-risk adult patients scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled and randomized (1:1) to receive the 1 L PEG+L regimen or the 2 L PEG regimen. The primary outcome was the effectiveness of bowel cleansing according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rate, cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate and adenoma detection rate, tolerability, adverse events, and willingness to repeat bowel preparation. The full analysis set (FAS) and per-protocol set (PPS) were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 548 patients comprised the FAS, and 522 patients comprised the PPS. Noninferiority on adequate bowel cleansing of 1 L PEG+L vs 2 L PEG was established both in FAS (90.5% vs 91.6%, P = .644) and PPS (90.3% vs 92.4%, P = .390). There were no significant differences regarding the total score and each segment scores of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, cecal intubation rate, cecal insertion time, withdrawal time, polyp detection rate, and adenoma detection rate (all, P > .05). However, patients in the 1 L PEG+L group reported less nausea (7.7% vs 17.1%, P < .01) and vomiting (4.0% vs 10.9%, P < .01) and had a higher willingness to repeat bowel preparation (95.2% vs 82.2%, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The regimen of 1 L PEG+L was not inferior to 2 L PEG on colon cleansing, with better tolerability and higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation in a low-risk population. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100053273.).

Polyethylene glycol combined with linaclotide is an effective and well-tolerated bowel preparation regimen for colonoscopy: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Bowel preparation is an important determinant of the quality of colonoscopy. The traditional split-dose regimen of 4 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions for bowel preparation is effective but poorly tolerated. The aim of this was to study the efficacy and tolerability of using linaclotide as an adjunctive agent with low-volume PEG for bowel preparation.

METHODS

This was an endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial of 432 patients randomly assigned to three groups: 2 L PEG, 4 L PEG and 2 L PEG + 290 µg linaclotide (2 L PEG + L group). The primary outcome measure was efficacy of bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), with secondary outcomes of patients' tolerance, defecating frequency, complications, sleeping quality, cecal intubation rate, preparation-to-colonoscopy interval, withdrawal time, cecal intubation time, and adenoma and polyp detection rates.

RESULTS

The percentage of adequate bowel preparation in the 2 L PEG + L group was higher than that of the 2 L PEG group (87.9% vs. 77.0%; P = 0.017), but not the 4 L PEG group (87.9% vs. 91.4%; P = 0.339). In terms of the mean (SD) BBPS score for the total and segmental colons, the bowel cleansing efficacy of 2 L PEG + L was superior to that of 2 L PEG and similar to that of 4 L PEG. Patient's tolerance (including complications, willingness to repeat and sleeping quality) were compatible between the 2 L and 2 L + L group, and the 4 L group was the worst among these three groups.

CONCLUSION

Two liters of PEG combined with 290 µg linaclotide was an effective and well-tolerated bowel preparation regimen.

Value of the diving method for capsule endoscopy in the examination of small-intestinal disease: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is limited by poor image quality and incomplete small-bowel transit. This study was designed to evaluate the diving method for VCE in the examination of small-intestinal disease.

METHODS

From July 2017 to September 2017, eligible patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, the diving group and the control group. For the diving group, 500 mL of water was administered every hour when the capsule reached the small bowel. The primary outcomes were image quality and positive findings. Secondary outcomes were the completion rate of examination, gastric transit time (GTT), small-bowel transit time (SBTT), lesion detection rate, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

One hundred forty patients were included. The scores of endoscopic images in the proximal third and middle third of the small bowel in the diving group were significantly higher than that in the control group (3.47 ± .60 vs 3.11 ± .63 [P = .007] and 3.24 ± .59 vs 2.78 ± .74 [P = .002], respectively). The positive findings in the distal third of the small bowel were significantly different between the 2 groups (P = .005). The completion rate in the diving group was significantly higher (92.19% vs 76.32%, respectively; P = .012). The GTT, SBTT, and lesion detection rate were similar in 2 groups (P = .282, .067, and .577, respectively). No discomfort or adverse events were reported except for a few cases of frequent urination.

CONCLUSIONS

The diving method for VCE examination effectively improves the endoscopic view in the proximal and middle thirds of the small bowel and the positive findings in the distal small intestine and increases the completion rate. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR-RDR-17011823.).

Lavage, Simethicone, and Prokinetics-What to Swallow with a Video Capsule

The development of new capsules now allows endoscopic diagnosis in all segments of the gastrointestinal tract and comes with new needs for differentiated preparation regimens. Although the literature is steadily increasing, the results of the conducted trials on preparation are sometimes conflicting. The ingestion of simethicone before gastric and small bowel capsule endoscopy for prevention of air bubbles is established. The value of a lavage before small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended, although not supported by all studies. Ingestion in the morning before the procedure seems useful for the improvement of mucosa visualization. Lavage after swallowing of the capsule seems to improve image quality, and in some studies also diagnostic yield. Prokinetics has been used with first generation capsules to shorten gastric transit time and increase the rate of complete small bowel visualization. With the massively prolonged battery capacity of the new generation small bowel capsules, prokinetics are only necessary in significantly delayed gastric emptying as documented by a real-time viewer. Lavage is crucial for an effective colon capsule or pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy. Mainly high or low volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) is used. Apart from achieving optimal cleanliness, propulsion of the capsule by ingested boosts is required to obtain a complete passage through the colon within the battery lifetime. Boosts with low volume sodium picosulfate (NaP) or diatrizoate (gastrografin) seem most effective, but potentially have more side effects than PEG. Future research is needed for more patient friendly but effective preparations, especially for colon capsule and pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy.

The Efficacy of 4 Liters of Clear Liquids for Small Bowel Preparation Prior to Video Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Optimal small bowel (SB) preparation for video capsule endoscopy (VCE) is controversial. Our study aimed to support the use of a specified volume of 4 liters of clear liquids for bowel preparation for VCE.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 284 patients who underwent SB preparation with 2 liters of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 284 patients who had 4 liters of clear liquid preparation. We analyzed image quality, endoscopic findings, completion rate, and transit times.

RESULTS

The 4-liter clear liquid group had significantly higher mean image quality scores when compared to the PEG group (2.908±0.77 to 2.669±0.64, p<0.0001), as well as more studies with adequate preparation (72% to 64%, p=0.0214). Although the PEG group had more endoscopic findings on VCE (40% to 23%, p<0.0001), there was a significant difference in the indications for the procedure between the groups. There was no difference in the capsule completion rate or SB transit time.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate significantly higher mean image quality scores when using a specified volume of 4 liters of clear liquid compared to 2 liters of PEG. This study supports the growing evidence of the effectiveness of a 4-liter clear liquid SB preparation as opposed to PEG for VCE.