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

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].

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.

[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.

Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To determine the best option for bowel preparation [sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG)] for elective colonoscopy in adult outpatients.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Lilacs. No restrictions were placed for country, year of publication or language. The last search in the literature was performed on November 20^th, 2017. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. The subjects included were adult outpatients who underwent bowel cleansing for elective colonoscopy. The included studies compared sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and PEG for bowel preparation. Exclusion criteria were the inclusion of inpatients or groups with specific conditions, failure to mention patient status (outpatient or inpatient) or dietary restrictions, and permission to have unrestricted diet on the day prior to the exam. Primary outcomes were bowel cleaning success and/or tolerability of colon preparation. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates. Data on intention-to-treat were extracted by two independent authors and risk of bias assessed through the Jadad scale. Funnel plots, Egger’s test, Higgins’ test (I²) and sensitivity analyses were used to assess reporting bias and heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by computing risk difference (RD) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) version 6.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) was the software chosen to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

662 records were identified but only 16 trials with 6200 subjects were included for the meta-analysis. High heterogeneity among studies was found and sensitivity analysis was needed and performed to interpret data. In the pooled analysis, SPMC was better for bowel cleaning [MH FE, RD 0.03, IC (0.01, 0.05), P = 0.003, I² = 33%, NNT 34], for tolerability [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.03, 0.13), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 13] and for adverse events [MH RE, RD 0.13, IC (0.05, 0.22), P = 0.002, I² = 88%, NNT 7]. There was no difference in regard to polyp and adenoma detection rates. Additional analyses were made by subgroups (type of regimen, volume of PEG solution and dietary recommendations). SPMC demonstrated better tolerability levels when compared to PEG in the following subgroups: “day-before preparation” [MH FE, RD 0.17, IC (0.13, 0.21), P < 0.0001, I² = 0%, NNT 6], “preparation in accordance with time interval for colonoscopy” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.15), P = 0.02, I² = 54%, NNT 13], when compared to “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.14), I² = 89%, P = 0.02, NNT 13] and in the subgroup “liquid diet on day before” [MH RE, RD 0.14, IC (0.06,0.22), P = 0.0006, I² = 81%, NNT 8]. SPMC was also found to cause fewer adverse events than PEG in the “high-volume PEG solutions” [MH RE, RD -0.18, IC (-0.30, -0.07), P = 0.002, I² = 79%, NNT 6] and PEG in the “low-residue diet” subgroup [MH RE, RD -0.17, IC (-0.27, 0.07), P = 0.0008, I² = 86%, NNT 6].

CONCLUSION

SPMC seems to be better than PEG for bowel preparation, with a similar bowel cleaning success rate, better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse events.

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.