A randomized controlled trial comparing polyethylene glycol + ascorbic acid with sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy

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

Preoperative Oral-Bowel Preparation Using Sodium Picosulfate and Magnesium Citrate Combination Powder for Left-Sided Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Study

Objective

This study aimed to determine if induction of sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate (SPMC) preparation leads to adequate surgery for left-sided colorectal cancer (CRC).

Summary of Background Data

Adequate bowel cleansing is vital for safe and accurate colorectal surgery. Ingestion of laxatives for bowel cleansing may be associated with a broad spectrum of adverse effects during surgical intervention.

Methods

A single-center prospective study was conducted with hospitalized patients scheduled operation for left-sided CRC. All enrolled patients were instructed to consume normal diet until before preparation. Twenty-seven patients underwent preoperative SPMC preparation.

Results

The primary endpoint of this study was the 30-day postoperative morbidity rate, which was 23%, and no postoperative complication was higher than Clavien-Dindo grade 3. The primary anastomosis rate was 100%, and there was no anastomotic leakage. The colonic cleansing grades were 1 or 2 according to the bowel preparation scale for surgical assessment in 89% of the patients. The acceptability of the cleansing procedure by the patients assessed by a questionnaire was 85%, and the acceptability of the SPMC preparation by the medical staff was 93%. The surgical procedures included 18 laparoscopies, 6 robotic surgeries, and 3 laparotomies. The median operation time was 165 minutes, and the median blood loss was <50 cc. The median sodium serum concentration was significantly decreased after surgery.

Conclusion

Ingestion of an SPMC preparation as a cleansing procedure was judged to be adequate for curative surgery in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer.

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.

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.

The advantage of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution combined with lactulose in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The main aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of polyethylene glycol electrolyte (PEG) solution combined with lactulose in bowel preparation to find a new method for colonoscopy preparation to improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval preparation-to-colonoscopy (P-C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded and placebo-controlled study was conducted. Three hundred sixty patients who were scheduled for colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. They were randomly divided into the PEG-lactulose group and the PEG-placebo group with 180 patients per arm. Two of the most common methods for estimating the quality of bowel preparation were the use of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and the measurement of the Bubble Scale and adenoma detection rate (ADR) as a secondary outcome of observation.

RESULTS

The PEG-lactulose group had a significant improvement in the quality of bowel preparation compared with the PEG-placebo group including colon cleanliness in interval P-C at 8 and 9 h (p<0.05) and bubble elimination in interval P-C at 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 h (p<0.05). Compared with the PEG-placebo group, the ADR (23.3% vs. 15.0%, p<0.05) and the size (≤5 mm) of the adenoma (45.2% vs. 18.5%, p<0.05) increased in the PEG-lactulose group, and there were significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

PEG solution combined with lactulose can improve the quality of colonoscopy in patients with long interval P-C to allow the patients to select more flexible colonoscopy time. It is worth further popularizing in clinical practice.

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.

A head-to-head comparison of 4-L polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions before colonoscopy: which is the best? A multicentre, randomized trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) and low-volume polyethylene glycol/ascorbic acid (PEGA) in a single- or split-dose regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, endoscopist-blinded, multicentre study. Outpatients received either PEG or SPMC or PEGA in a single or a split dose before the colonoscopy. Quality and tolerability of the preparation and complaints during preparation were recorded.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-three patients were analysed. Satisfactory bowel cleansing (Aronchick score 1 + 2) was more frequent when a split dose was used irrespective of the solution type (PEG 90.1 vs 68.8%, PEGA 86.0 vs 71.6%, SPMC 84.3 vs 60.2%, p < 0.001). SPMC was the best tolerated followed by PEGA (p < 0.006) and PEG as the worst (p < 0.001). Tolerability did not correlate with the regimen and amount of the solution used. Female gender is associated with a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting and pain (p < 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Both PEG, PEGA and SPMC are fully comparable in terms of colonic cleansing when used in similar regimens. The split-dose preparation is more effective in all agents. SPMC and PEGA are better tolerated than PEG. The preparation regimen and/or the volume do not affect tolerability.

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Polyethylene Glycol With Ascorbic Acid and an Oral Sulfate Solution in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

An adequate level of bowel preparation before colonoscopy is important. The ideal agent for bowel preparation should be effective and tolerable.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and tolerability of polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid and oral sulfate solution in a split method for bowel preparation.

DESIGN

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTINGS

Outpatients at the specialized clinics were included.

PATIENTS

A total of 186 subjects were randomly assigned. After exclusions, 84 subjects in the polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid group and 83 subjects in the oral sulfate solution group completed the study and were analyzed.

INTERVENTIONS

Polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution in a split method was the included intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the rate of successful bowel preparation, which was defined as being excellent or good on the Aronchick scale. Tolerability and adverse events were also measured.

RESULTS

Success of bowel preparation was not different between 2 groups (91.7% vs 96.4%; p = 0.20), and the rate of adverse GI events (abdominal distension, pain, nausea, vomiting, or abdominal discomfort) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In contrast, the mean intensity of vomiting was higher in the oral sulfate solution group than in the polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid group (1.6 ± 0.9 vs 1.9 ± 1.1; p = 0.02).

LIMITATIONS

All of the colonoscopies were performed in the morning, and the subjects were offered enhanced instructions for bowel preparation. In addition, the results of tolerability and adverse effect may have a type II error, because the number of cases was calculated for confirming the efficacy of bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral sulfate solution is effective at colonoscopy cleansing and has acceptable tolerability when it is compared with polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid. The taste and flavor of oral sulfate solution still need to be improved to enhance tolerability.

Polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid is as effective as sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate for bowel preparation: A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two low-volume agents, polyethylene glycol (PEG)-3350 plus ascorbic acid (PEG + Asc) and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC), for bowel preparation.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, single-center, randomized controlled trial comparing PEG + Asc with SPMC to evaluate the bowel cleansing efficacy of the two regimens using the modified Ottawa bowel preparation scale (OBPS) and the Aronchick scale. Patients' taste and overall tolerance were assessed with a questionnaire.

RESULTS

In total, 200 patients were randomized to receive either PEG + Asc (n = 98) or SPMC (n = 102). Both treatments were similarly efficacious in bowel cleansing, based on the modified OBSP (PEG + Asc 4.01 ± 2.29 vs SPMC 3.86 ± 2.47, P = 0.62) and Aronchick scale (PEG + Asc 1.96 ± 0.70 vs SPMC 1.89 ± 0.70, P = 0.42). Patient-reported taste and tolerance of each regimen, as reported by the questionnaire, were significantly greater in the PEG + Asc group than in the SPMC group (P = 0.01). In terms of adverse events, dizziness was more frequently observed in the PEG + Asc group (P = 0.03), whereas nausea was more common in the SPMC group (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

PEG + Asc and SPMC show similar efficacy for bowel preparation. However, patient's overall tolerance is higher in the PEG + Asc group.

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.