Evaluation of Clensia®, a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG

Superior bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy with 1L-PEG compared to 2L-PEG and picosulphate: Data from a large real-world retrospective outpatient cohort

BACKGROUND

Several randomized clinical trials comparing different bowel preparations (BP) have shown similar efficacy; however, there is a lack of real-world studies on this topic.

AIMS

This study aims to identify the most effective BP regimen in a real-world setting and any predictors of inadequate BP.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study was conducted over 14 months at an academic hospital including outpatient colonoscopies in which adult patients did not teach on how to perform BP before colonoscopy. Colonoscopies with 1L-PEG, 2L-PEG and picosulphate mixtures were considered. A multivariable analysis for factors associated to poor BP was fitted.

RESULTS

Overall, 1779 patients (51 %F, 60±14) years were included. The 1L-PEG regimen provided a higher rate of BP adequacy at multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 2.30, 95 %CI 1.67-3.16,p < 0.001) and was associated with higher median Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score (p < 0.001), higher rate of right-colon cleansing (p < 0.001) and exam completion (p = 0.04). Furthermore, we identified male sex, history of constipation, active smoking, previous pelvic surgery, concomitant psychiatric/neurological or chronic kidney diseases as predictors of inadequate BP.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest real-world study comparing 1L-PEG to other BP regimens. Our results suggest 1L-PEG provides better BP in a non-controlled setting, improving clinical practice quality and minimizing the need for repeated colonoscopies and saving healthcare resources.

Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for pediatric elective colonoscopy: Phase 3 RCT

Background and study aims Currently available polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations continue to represent a challenge in children. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG preparation with a conventional PEG-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) in children and adolescents. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF104 (Clensia) and a conventional PEG-ES (Klean-Prep), and stratified by age stratum (2 to <6; 6 to < 12;12 to <18 years). The primary endpoint was to test the non-inferiority of PMF104 versus PEG-ES, in terms of colon cleansing. Safety, tolerability, acceptability, palatability, and compliance were also assessed. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed in the per protocol set (PPS) and full analysis set (FAS) and safety and tolerability endpoints in the safety set (SAF). Results Of the 356 patients enrolled, 258 were included in the PPS, 346 in the FAS, and 351 in the SAF. Non-inferiority of PMF104 was confirmed for children aged > 6 years and for all age groups in PPS and FAS, respectively. Optimal compliance was reported more frequently in the PMF104 than in the PEG-ES group, in both PPS (86.1% vs. 68.4%) and FAS (82.9% vs. 65.3%). Both preparations were equally safe and tolerable. Palatability and acceptability were considered better in the PMF104 group than in the PEG-ES group (27.1% vs. 15.3% and 15.3% vs. 3.5%, respectively). Conclusions In children aged 6 to 17 years, the new low-volume product PMF104 is non-inferior to the reference PEG-ES in terms of bowel cleansing, safety, and tolerability, with slightly better results in compliance, palatability, and acceptability.

Comparing Low Volume Versus Conventional Volume of Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation during Colonoscopy: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Background

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution is widely used as a colonoscopic bowel cleaning agent, although some patients are intolerant due to the need for ingesting large solution volumes and unpleasant taste. A low-volume solution may enhance patient tolerability and compliance in bowel preparation. Accordingly, this study compared the effectiveness of two difference PEG volumes for bowel preparation before colonoscopy in terms of bowel cleanliness, completeness of colonoscopy, patient tolerability and colonoscopy duration.

Methods

Using a prospective randomised controlled single-blinded study design, 164 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were allocated to two groups (n = 82 patients in each) to receive either the conventional PEG volume (3 L, control group) or the low volume (2 L, intervention group). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a validated scale for assessing bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy, was used to score bowel cleanliness in three colon segments. Secondarily, colonoscopy completeness, tolerability to drinking PEG and the duration of colonoscopy were compared between the groups.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two intervention groups in terms of bowel cleanliness (P = 0.119), colonoscopy completion (P = 0.535), tolerability (P = 0.190) or the amount of sedation/analgesia required (midazolam, P = 0.162; pethidine, P = 0.708). Only the duration of colonoscopy differed between the two groups (longer duration in the control group, P = 0.039).

Conclusion

Low-volume (2 L) PEG is as effective as the standard 3 L solution in bowel cleaning before colonoscopy; however, the superiority of either solution could not be established.

Efficacy and safety of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly: comparison with oral sulfate solution

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Recently, 1 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbic acid (Asc) has been introduced in Korea as a colonoscopy preparation agent. Data on its efficacy and safety in older adults have been limited. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 1 L PEG/Asc in older adults by comparing it with oral sulfate solution (OSS).

METHODS

A prospective multicenter randomized study was conducted with subjects aged ≥ 65 years who underwent colonoscopy. The participants were randomized to receive 1 L PEG/Asc or OSS. The primary endpoint was successful bowel preparation, defined as total Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥ 6, and ≥ 2 at each segment. Patient satisfaction, adverse events, and renal function changes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Among the 106 patients, 104 were finally included in the analysis. Overall, successful bowel preparation was achieved in 96.2% of both 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS groups. The satisfaction scores for taste, total amount ingested, overall feeling, and willingness to repeat the same regimen were not significantly different between the groups. Adverse events of moderate or higher severity occurred in 16 and 10 cases in the 1 L PEG/Asc and OSS group, respectively. There were no significant changes in electrolyte levels or renal function from baseline.

CONCLUSION

The successful bowel preparation rate was > 90% in both groups without severe adverse effects and significant changes in renal function. As a new low-dose preparation regimen for colonoscopy in older adults, 1 L PEG/Asc, is as effective and safe as OSS.

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.).

Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature

Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in patients using high- and low-volume cleansing products

INTRODUCTION

Bowel preparation is crucial for colonoscopy completeness and lesions detection. Today, several cleansing products are equally recommended by guidelines, irrespective of patients' characteristics. Identification of preparation-specific risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation may lead to a personalized prescription of cleansing products to refine patients' tolerance and improve endoscopic outcomes.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy using either a high-volume [HV: 4 l polyethylene glycol (PEG)] or a low-volume (LV: 2 l PEG + bisacodyl) preparation. Day-before regimen or split-dose regimen was used for morning or afternoon colonoscopies, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify risk factors related to inadequate bowel preparation, according to the Boston bowel preparation scale for HV and LV preparations.

RESULTS

We enrolled 2040 patients, of which 1815 were included in the final analysis (average age 60.6 years, 50.2% men). Half of them (52%) used LV preparation. Adequate preparation was achieved by 87.6% without differences between the HV and LV groups (89.2% vs. 86.6%; P = 0.098). The use of day-before regimen and incomplete assumption of PEG were independent predictors of poor visibility for either HV or LV preparation. However, different specific risk factors for HV [diabetes: odds ratio (OR), 3.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91-7.58; low level of instruction: OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.11-3.44; and previous abdominal surgery: OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.20-4.30] and for LV (heart disease: OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.09-3.88; age > 65 years: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.27) preparations were identified.

CONCLUSION

Day-before preparation and incomplete assumption of the purgative agents affect bowel visibility irrespective of the preparation volume. LV should be preferred to HV preparations in patients with diabetes, low level of instruction, and previous abdominal surgery, whereas an HV preparation should be preferred in patients with heart disease and in older patients.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

Effect of oral simethicone on the quality of colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the effect of oral simethicone (SIM), an antifoaming agent, on the quality of colonoscopy in terms of bowel preparation quality, adenoma or polyp detection rate (ADR/PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR).

METHODS

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of SIM during bowel preparation for colonoscopy published up to 17 March 2021 were identified from the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Bowel preparation quality, ADR/PDR/CIR, cecal intubation time (CIT), withdrawal time (WT), patients' tolerability, acceptability and volume of foam and bubbles were compared between the SIM and non-SIM groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RCTs with 10 505 patients were included. Oral SIM significantly increased the rate of total Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score ≥6 (risk ratio [RR]  1.13, P < 0.0001), acceptability (RR  1.15, P = 0.01) and the rate of no or minimal foam and bubbles (RR  1.28, P < 0.00001) and decreased abdominal distension (RR  0.64, P < 0.0001). However, it had no significant impact on overall ADR, overall PDR, CIR, CIT or WT. The rate of total BBPS score ≥6 remained significantly higher in the SIM group when a single-dose laxative regimen or a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg was employed; and ADR, PDR and CIR were significantly increased in the SIM group among colonoscopy clinicians who achieved an ADR <31%, PDR <45% and CIR <96%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral SIM can improve bowel preparation quality, especially in patients receiving a SIM dosage of ≥320 mg or a single-dose laxative regimen. SIM may be preferred by junior colonoscopy physicians/trainees with a lower ADR/PDR or CIR.

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study

BACKGROUND

To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone).

RESULTS

CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2.

CONCLUSION

CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Low-volume regimen without additional liquids or adjunctive agents versus standard bowel preparation in non-constipated patients: a propensity score matching analysis

AIMS

Split-dose, 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG, HSD) is currently the first-line choice for unselected or difficult colon preparations. Almost all low-volume bowel preparations (BPs) include a large volume of additional liquid and adjunctive agents to improve cleansing efficiency. However, neither HSD nor additional liquids or adjunctive agents of low-volume regimens may be necessary for low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the cleansing efficiency between split-dose, low-volume (2-L) PEG without additional liquids or adjunctive agents (LSD) and HSD in non-constipated patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed from January 2013 to December 2015. Consecutive non-constipated patients who received LSD or HSD BPs were enrolled into LSD and HSD groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce selection bias and potential confounders. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality, as evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The adenoma detection rate (ADR), the most important secondary outcome, was also recorded. Follow-up was conducted in 2016.

RESULTS

After excluding those participants who meet exclusion criteria or lost follow-up, 1656 non-constipated patients underwent LSD (n = 999) or HSD (n = 657) BP. Most patients had a BBPS score ≥6 (LSD vs. HSD, 93.6 vs. 92.9%, p = .166). The segmental BBPS scores were ≥2 in 92 and 91.9% in the LSD and HSD groups, respectively. The overall ADR was 16.7% in the LSD group and 17.5% in the HSD group (p = .334).

CONCLUSION

For non-constipated patients, LSD is not inferior to HSD in cleansing efficiency, while more willing to repeat the same BP.

Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared: A real-life single-blinded large-population study

BACKGROUND

Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate. Moreover, real-life comparisons are lacking.

AIM

To compare efficacy (both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions) and tolerability of a high-volume (HV: 4 L polyethylene glycol, PEG) and a low-volume (LV: 2 L PEG plus bisacodyl) bowel preparation in a real-life setting.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016. Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation, with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures. Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile/serrated lesion detection rate (SDR) and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.

RESULTS

Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815 (mean age 60.6 years, 50.2% men) finally included. LV was chosen by 52% of patients (50.8% of men, 54.9% of women). Split-dose schedule was more common with HV (44.7% vs 38.2%, P = 0.005). High-definition scopes were used in 33.4% of patients, without difference in the two groups (P = 0.605). HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates (89.2% vs 86.6%, P = 0.098), also considering the two different schedules (HV split-dose 93.8% vs LV split-dose 93.6%, P = 1; HV day-before 85.5% vs LV day-before 82.3%, P = 0.182). Mean global BBPS score was higher for HV preparations (7.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.8 ± 1.6, P < 0.001). After adjustment for sex, age and indications for colonoscopy, HV preparation resulted higher in PDR [Odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95%CI: 1.07-1.63, P = 0.011] and ADR (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.02–1.63, P = 0.038) and comparable to LV in AADR (OR 1.51, 95%CI 0.97-2.35, P = 0.069), SDR and cancer detection rate. The use of standard-definition colonoscopes was associated to lower PDR (adjusted OR 1.59, 95%CI: 1.22-2.08, P < 0.001), ADR (adjusted OR 1.71, 95%CI: 1.26–2.30, P < 0.001) and AADR (adjusted OR 1.97, 95%CI: 1.09-3.56, P = 0.025) in patients receiving LV preparation. Mean Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally (7, P = 0.627) but a ≥ 75% dose intake was more frequent with LV (94.6% vs 92.1%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

In a real-life setting, PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation. However, with higher PDR and ADR, HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy, especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.

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.

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.

Low-volume reduced bowel preparation regimen for CT colonography: a randomized noninferiority trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether the quality of a low-volume reduced bowel preparation (LV-RBP) for CT Colonography (CTC) is noninferior to full-volume reduced bowel preparation (FV-RBP) regimen.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, consecutive participants referred for CTC were randomly assigned to receive LV-RBP (52.5 g of PMF104 in 500 mL of water) or FV-RBP (105 g of PMF104 in 1000 mL of water). Images were independently reviewed by five blinded readers who rated the quality of bowel preparation from 0 (best score) to 3 (worst score). The primary outcome was the noninferiority of LV-RBP to FV-RBP in the proportion of colonic segments scored 0 for cleansing quality, with noninferiority margin of 10%. Volume of residual fluids, colonic distension, lesions and polyps detection rates and patient tolerability were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

From March 2019 to January 2020, 110 participants (mean age 65 years ± 14 [standard deviation]; 74 women) were allocated to LV-RBP (n = 55) or FV-RBP (n = 55) arms. There were 92% segment scored 0 in colon cleansing quality in LV-RBP and 94% in FV-RBP for prone scans, and 94% vs 92% for supine scans. Risk difference was - 2.1 (95% CI -5.9 to 1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI -2.4 to 5.4) for prone and supine positions, respectively. Residual fluids and colonic distension were also noninferior in LV-RBP. LV-RBP was associated with a lower number of evacuations during preparation (7 ± 5 vs 10 ± 6, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The LV-RBP for CTC demonstrated noninferior quality of colon cleansing with improved gastrointestinal tolerability compared to FV-RBP regimen.

The Effect of Gum Chewing on Abdominal Pain and Nausea Caused by Polyethylene Glycol Solution Used for Intestinal Cleansing Before Colonoscopy: An Endoscopist-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

Gum chewing is known to have a positive effect on intestinal motility. Most studies have examined its effect on ileus, but there has been no discussion of the effects of polyethylene glycol used in preparation for colonoscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of gum chewing on abdominal pain and nausea caused by polyethylene glycol solution used for intestinal cleansing before colonoscopy. The study was planned as a single-center, randomized, controlled experimental study. The research sample was determined using power analysis (n = 60). Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized into the experimental and control groups. Patients in the gum group chewed mint-flavored sugar-free gum for 20 minutes every 2 hours until the start of colonoscopy after consuming 2 L of polyethylene glycol solution. Patients in the control group drank only polyethylene glycol solution. Examination of precolonoscopy pain and nausea revealed a statistically significant difference in the gum chewing group (p < .05). Patients using sugar-free gum experienced statistically significant fewer problems after colonoscopy. Gum chewing had a positive effect on abdominal pain and nausea. There are no drawbacks to presolution chewing, and it may be recommended for patients.

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose.

METHODS

In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I² statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.

RESULTS

In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I² = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.

[Optimal Laxatives for Oral Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: from High-volume to Novel Low-volume Solutions]

Optimal bowel preparation is essential for a more accurate, comfortable, and safe colonoscopy. The majority of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers can be explained by procedural factors, mainly missed polyps or inadequate examination. Therefore the most important goal of optimal bowel preparation is to reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. Although adequate preparation should be achieved in 85-90% or more of all colonoscopy as a quality indicator, unfortunately 20-30% shows inadequate preparation. Laxatives for oral colonoscopy bowel preparation can be classified into polyethylene glycol (PEG)-electrolyte lavage solution, osmotic laxatives, stimulant laxatives, and divided into high-volume solution (≥3 L) and low-volume solution (<3 L). The updated 2019 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline is broadly similar to the 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommendations and reaffirms the importance of split-dosing. However, new ESGE guideline, unlike the 2014 ASGE recommendation, suggests the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG based agents that have been clinically validated for most outpatient scenarios. For effective, safe, and highly adherent bowel preparation, physicians who prescribe and implement colonoscopy should properly know the advantages and limitations, the dosing, and the timing of regimens. Recently many studies have attempted to find the most ideal regimens, and more convenient, effective, and safe regimens have been developed by reducing the dosing volume and improving the taste. The high tolerability and acceptability of the new low-volume regimens suggest us how we should use it to increase the participation of the national colorectal cancer screening program.

Effect of pre-endoscopy intake of simethicone solution on endoscopic mucosal visibility: A single blinded, placebo control, randomized trial

Objective:

To determine effect of pre-endoscopy intake of simethicone solution on endoscopic mucosal visibility.

Methodology:

A randomized, single blinded placebo control trial was done in patients undergoing oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy for any indication at DOTs Endoscopy Suite, CHK during the period of April to June 2019. Informed consent was taken. Patients were randomly allocated in two groups. Group-A received placebo while Group-B received Simethicone. Evaluation of mucosal visibility was assessed at 4 sites (oesophagus, fundus, antrum & duodenum) by previously validated scoring. Mean of visibility scores were compared in two groups.

Results:

Two hundred and forty-eight patients were inducted and randomly allocate to two groups of 124 each. Mean of total sum of scores in Group-A was 8.14 ±2.44 and that of Group-B was 5.80 ±1.75 (p<0.001). Adequate visibility in Group-A was seen in 41.1% and that in Group-B was 78.2% (p<0.001).

Conclusion:

Use of Simethicone significantly improves mucosal visibility during OGD.

Simethicone decreases bloating and improves bowel preparation effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Simethicone is an adjunct frequently used during bowel preparation before colonoscopy and currently there is no consensus on whether it should be recommended in standard bowel preparation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effect simethicone has on bowel cleanliness, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and tolerability.

METHODS

We searched the literature for studies that compared colon cleansing of patients that received standard bowel preparation alone and in combination with simethicone prior to colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were colon cleanliness, ADR, and tolerability.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials with 5630 patients were included in meta-analysis. Overall, polyethylene glycol (PEG) with simethicone improves colon cleansing compared with PEG alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, CI 1.11 to 1.97, P = 0.008). This improvement was seen for single dosing (OR 1.83, CI 1.20 to 2.79, P = 0.005) but not for split dosing (OR 1.32, CI 0.72 to 2.43, P = 0.38). Overall, simethicone had no effect on ADR (OR 1.22, CI 0.81 to 1.83, P = 0.33), but in patients receiving single dosing, simethicone significantly increased ADR (OR 1.96, CI 1.22 to 3.16, P = 0.005). The rates of nausea (OR 0.96, CI 0.75 to 1.24, P = 0.75), vomiting (OR 1.00, CI 0.69 to 1.44, P = 0.99), and abdominal pain (OR 0.69, CI 0.40 to 1.18, P = 0.17) were not significantly different between PEG and PEG + simethicone cohorts. For abdominal bloating, the PEG cohort had greater odds of experiencing bloating than the PEG + simethicone cohort (OR 2.33, CI 1.70 to 3.20, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone improves colon cleanliness and ADR; however, this improvement is not seen in patients receiving split-dose PEG. Furthermore, simethicone decreases abdominal bloating but has no effect on nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Simethicone may be a useful bowel preparation adjunct in patients unable to receive split-dose PEG.

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 safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC)

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Quality of inspection during colonoscopy is strictly related to the level of cleansing. High-volume (PEG-based) solutions are highly effective and safe, but their high volume affects tolerability and compliance. The aim of this study was to compare a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone solution (PMF 104,Clensia) with a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid solution (PEG-ASC; Moviprep).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF 104 and PEG-ASC. In both groups, patients were instructed to take a full-dose regimen the evening before if colonoscopy was scheduled before 11 am to 12 pm, or to take a split regimen if colonoscopy was scheduled after 11 am to 12 pm. The primary end-point was an equivalence between PMF104 and PEG-ASC in the rate of adequate level of cleansing (Ottawa scale ≤ 6), with safety, mucosal visibility, tolerability, acceptance and compliance being also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 403 enrolled, 367 patients (Mean age [SD]: 55.6 (14.4) years; male:166 [45.2 %]) were included in the per protocol (PP) analysis: 184 being randomized in the PMF 104 group and 183 in the PEG-ASC group. Successful bowel cleansing was 78.3 % and 74.3 % in PMF104 and in PEG-ASC, respectively ( P  = 0.37). Both preparations were equally safe (mild adverse events were observed in 9.2 % and 9.3 % of patients in the PMF104 and in the PEG-ASC group, respectively) and acceptable (no or mild distress during the intake in 81.4 % and 80.8 % in the PMF104 in the PEG-ASC, respectively [ P  = 0.74]).

CONCLUSION

The new low-volume product Clensia is equivalent to the reference low-volume PEG-ASC in terms of bowel cleansing, safety and acceptance.

Same-Day Single Dose of 2 Liter Polyethylene Glycol is Not Inferior to The Standard Bowel Preparation Regimen in Low-Risk Patients: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Split dose of 4 l polyethylene glycol (PEG) is currently the standard regimen for bowel preparation (BP). However, it may be unnecessary for patients without high risks (e.g., old age, constipation, and diabetes, and so on) for inadequate BP. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of bowel cleansing between low-risk patients receiving same-day, single dose of low-volume (SSL) PEG vs. standard regimen.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, observer-blinded, non-inferiority study enrolled low-risk patients in three centers. Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to the SSL or standard group. The primary outcome was adequate BP, defined by Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS) ≥6 and each segmental score ≥2. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, cecal intubation rate, and patient willingness to repeat BP, and so on.

RESULTS

Among 2,532 patients eligible for the study, 940 (37.1%) were at low risk and 792 (31.3%) at high risk for inadequate BP. The low-risk patients were randomly allocated to the SSL (n=470) or standard group (n=470). The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that adequate BP was achieved in 88.1% in the SSL group and 87.0% in the standard group (relative risk (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-1.63, P=0.621). The overall BBPS was 7.3±1.2 and 7.3±1.3, respectively (P=0.948). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regards to the right, transverse, and left-segmental colon BBPS (all P>0.05). However, in terms of adverse events, patients in the SSL group reported less nausea (19.6% vs. 29.9%), vomiting (5.3% vs. 11.4%), and abdominal discomfort (2.2% vs. 6.0%) compared with those in the standard group. More patients in the SSL group were willing to repeat BP (94.0% vs. 89.5%, P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

For low-risk patients, the SSL regimen was not inferior to the split dose of 4 l PEG for adequacy of BP. Single dose of low-volume regimen had significantly fewer adverse events. This simplified regimen may be preferable in the "easy-to prepare" population.