Advertisement

Effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC versus other bowel preparations for colonoscopy: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials

Published:December 02, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2022.11.010

      Abstract

      Background and aims

      A 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (PEG-ASC) preparation has been recently developed to improve patients’ experience in colonoscopy. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 1-L PEG-ASC compared with those of other bowel preparations for colonoscopy.

      Methods

      MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing 1-L PEG-ASC with other bowel preparations published through July 2022. A random-effects model was applied for pooling the results; heterogeneity was expressed as I2.

      Results

      Nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed significantly higher cleansing success (CS) (OR = 1.50; 95% CI = 1.25–1.81; p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and right-colon high-quality cleansing (HQC) (OR = 1.67; 95% CI = 1.21–2.31; p < 0.01, I2 = 43%) with 1-L PEG-ASC compared to the other preparations.
      The pooled estimate of the adenoma detection rate (ADR) did not significantly differ between the two groups either in the overall (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.87–1.20; p = 0.79, I2 = 0%) or split-dosing regimen subgroup analysis (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.84–1.18; p = 0.94, I2 = 0%).
      A significantly higher pooled estimate of the number of patients with adverse events (AEs) (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.23–1.84; p<0.01, I2 = 0%) and incidence of AEs (IRR=1.33; 95% CI = 1.11–1.58; p<0.01, I2 = 71%) was observed with 1-L PEG-ASC than with the other preparations. No serious AEs or deaths occurred.

      Conclusions

      Compared to other preparations, 1-L PEG-ASC yielded higher overall CS, higher right-colon HQC rates, and similar ADR. The number of patients with AEs and incidence of the total AEs were significantly higher with 1-L PEG-ASC in the absence of serious AEs.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Digestive and Liver Disease
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Løberg M.
        • Kalager M.
        • Holme Ø.
        • et al.
        Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 799-807
        • Baxter N.N.
        • Goldwasser M.A.
        • Paszat L.F.
        • et al.
        Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150: 1-8
        • Sulz M.C.
        • Kröger A.
        • Prakash M.
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of the effect of bowel preparation on adenoma detection: early adenomas affected stronger than advanced adenomas.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11e0154149
        • Hassan C.
        • Manning J.
        • Álvarez González M.A.
        • et al.
        Improved detection of colorectal adenomas by high-quality colon cleansing.
        Endosc Int Open. 2020; 8 (JulEpub 2020 Jun 16. PMID: 32676536; PMCID: PMC7359847): E928-E937https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1167-1359
        • Clark B.T.
        • Laine L.
        High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 14: 1155-1162
        • Rex D.K.
        • Imperiale T.F.
        • Latinovich D.R.
        • Bratcher L.L.
        Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97: 1696-1700
        • Froehlich F.
        • Wietlisbach V.
        • Gonvers J.J.
        • Burnand B.
        • Vader J.P.
        Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European panel of appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy European multicenter study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 61: 378-384
        • Wexner S.D.
        • Beck D.E.
        • Baron T.H.
        • et al.
        A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: prepared by a task force from the American society of colon and rectal surgeons (ASCRS), the American society for gastrointestinal endoscopy (ASGE), and the society of American gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgeons (SAGES).
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63: 894-909
        • Hillyer G.C.
        • Basch C.H.
        • Lebwohl B.
        • et al.
        Shortened surveillance intervals following suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy: results of a national survey.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013; 28: 73-81
        • Hassan C.
        • East J.
        • Radaelli F.
        • et al.
        Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: european society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.
        Endoscopy. 2019; 51 (Aug): 775-794
        • Johnson D.A.
        • Barkun A.N.
        • Cohen L.B.
        • et al.
        Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer.
        Gastroenterology. 2014; 147 (Oct): 903-924
        • Radaelli F.
        • Meucci G.
        • Sgroi G.
        • Minoli G.
        • Italian Association of hospital gastroenterologists (AIGO)
        Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103 (May): 1122-1130
        • Lee T.J.
        • Rutter M.D.
        • Blanks R.G.
        • et al.
        Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS bowel cancer screening programme.
        Gut. 2012; 61 (Jul): 1050-1077
        • Halphen M.
        • Tayo B.
        • Flanagan S.
        • Clayton L.B.
        • Kornberger R.
        Pharmacodynamic and clinical evaluation of low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel cleansing solutions (1L PEG-ASC) using split dosing in healthy and screening colonoscopy subjects.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2014; 109: S189
        • DeMicco M.P.
        • Clayton L.B.
        • Pilot J.
        • Epstein M.S.
        Novel 1L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation 1L PEG-ASC for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate.
        GastrointestEndosc. 2018; 87: 677-687
        • Schreiber S.
        • Baumgart D.C.
        • Drenth J.P.H.
        • et al.
        Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1L 1-L PEG-ASC versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial.
        Endoscopy. 2019; 51 (Jan): 73-84
        • Bisschops R.
        • Manning J.
        • Clayton L.B.
        • Ng Kwet Shing R.
        • Álvarez-González M.
        Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1L 1-L PEG-ASC versus 2L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized phase 3 trial.
        Endoscopy. 2019; 51 (Jan): 60-72
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • The PRISMA Group
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statements.
        Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 1-7
        • Kim S.H.
        • Kim E.R.
        • Kim K.
        • et al.
        Combination of bisacodyl suppository and 1L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid is a non-inferior and comfortable regimen compared to 2L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid.
        Dig Endosc. 2020; 32 (MayEpub 2019 Nov 11. PMID: 31574170): 600-607https://doi.org/10.1111/den.13548
        • Koo J.S.
        • Byeon J.S.
        • Lee B.I.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of TJP-008 compared to 2L PEG with ascorbate in colon cleansing: a randomized phase 3 Trial.
        Gut Liver. 2022; 16 (Mar 15PMID: 34810296): 259-268https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl210092
        • Maida M.
        • Sinagra E.
        • Morreale G.C.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of very low-volume preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, multicenter observational study.
        World J Gastroenterol. 2020; 26 (Apr 28): 1950-1961https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i16. 1950
        • Frazzoni L.
        • Spada C.
        • Radaelli F.
        • et al.
        1L- vs. 4L-Polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy among inpatients: a propensity score-matching analysis.
        Dig Liver Dis. 2020; 52 (DecEpub 2020 Oct 21. PMID: 33250131): 1486-1493https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2020.10.006
        • Hong S.N.
        • Lee C.K.
        • Im J.P.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: a phase 4, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2021; (Oct 12:S0016-5107(21)01703-XEpub ahead of print. PMID: 34653425)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.09.041
        • Repici A.
        • Spada C.
        • Cannizzaro R.
        • et al.
        Novel 1-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate versus high-volume polyethylene glycol regimen for colonoscopy cleansing: a multicenter, randomized, phase IV study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2021; 94 (Octe9Epub 2021 Apr 30. PMID: 33940043): 823-831https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.04.020
        • Arieira C.
        • Dias de Castro F.
        • Boal Carvalho P.
        • et al.
        Bowel cleansing efficacy for colonoscopy: prospective, randomized comparative study of same-day dosing with 1-L and 2-L PEG + ascorbate.
        Endosc Int Open. 2021; 9 (Nov 12PMID: 34790521; PMCID: PMC8589540): E1602-E1610https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1520-4596
        • Nalankilli K.
        • Gibson D.J.
        • Anwar S.
        • et al.
        Split-dose 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbate is non-inferior to split-dose PEG with sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate with similar tolerability: a randomized study.
        JGH Open. 2021; 5 (Aug 17PMID: 34584971; PMCID: PMC8454467): 1026-1032https://doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12626
        • Yoon J.Y.
        • Kim H.G.
        • Cho Y.S.
        • Kim H.I.
        • Cha J.M.
        1L- versus 2L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in elderly patients: a randomized multicenter study.
        Surg Endosc. 2022; (Jan 15Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35031868)https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08947-4
        • Jung Y.
        • Kang S.B.
        • Yoon H.J.
        • Cha J.M.
        Improving the tolerability and safety of 1L polyethylene glycol plus low-dose ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in a healthy population: a randomized, multicenter clinical trial.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2022; (Mar 11:S0016-5107(22)00197-3Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35288148)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.03.007
        • Sterne J.A.C.
        • Savović J.
        • Page M.J.
        • et al.
        RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
        BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
        • DerSimonian R.
        • Laird N.
        Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
        Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7: 177-188
        • Higgins J.P.
        • Thompson S.G.
        • Deeks J.J.
        • et al.
        Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.
        BMJ. 2003; 327: 557-560
        • Higgins J.P.T.
        • Thomas J.
        • Chandler J.
        • et al.
        Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019).
        Cochrane, 2019 (Available from)
        • Viechtbauer W.
        Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package.
        J Stat Softw. 2010; 36: 1-48
        • R Core Team
        R: a language and environment for statistical computing.
        R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria2016 (URL)
        • van Riswijk M.L.M.
        • van Keulen K.E.
        • Siersema P.D.
        Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Dig Endosc. 2022; 34 (JanEpub 2021 Jun 24. PMID: 33991373): 13-32https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14015
        • Kaminski M.F.
        • Thomas-Gibson S.
        • Bugajski M.
        • et al.
        Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.
        Endoscopy. 2017; 49: 378-397
        • Manno M.
        • Biancheri P.
        • Bonura G.F.
        • et al.
        Safety of a novel 1L-polyethylene glycol-ascorbate solution for colonoscopy cleansing (REAL study).
        Dig Liver Dis. 2022; (May 22:S1590-8658(22)00260-2Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35614002)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2022.04.014