Cargando…

Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing k...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Barbeau, Pauline, Wolfe, Dianna, Yazdi, Fatemeh, Rice, Danielle B, Dube, Catherine, Kanji, Salmaan, Rostom, Alaa, Skidmore, Becky, Moher, David, Hutton, Brian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29950476
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021892
_version_ 1783335389615882240
author Barbeau, Pauline
Wolfe, Dianna
Yazdi, Fatemeh
Rice, Danielle B
Dube, Catherine
Kanji, Salmaan
Rostom, Alaa
Skidmore, Becky
Moher, David
Hutton, Brian
author_facet Barbeau, Pauline
Wolfe, Dianna
Yazdi, Fatemeh
Rice, Danielle B
Dube, Catherine
Kanji, Salmaan
Rostom, Alaa
Skidmore, Becky
Moher, David
Hutton, Brian
author_sort Barbeau, Pauline
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Given the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084720.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6020982
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60209822018-06-29 Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis Barbeau, Pauline Wolfe, Dianna Yazdi, Fatemeh Rice, Danielle B Dube, Catherine Kanji, Salmaan Rostom, Alaa Skidmore, Becky Moher, David Hutton, Brian BMJ Open Epidemiology INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Given the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084720. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6020982/ /pubmed/29950476 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021892 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Barbeau, Pauline
Wolfe, Dianna
Yazdi, Fatemeh
Rice, Danielle B
Dube, Catherine
Kanji, Salmaan
Rostom, Alaa
Skidmore, Becky
Moher, David
Hutton, Brian
Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_short Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
title_sort comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6020982/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29950476
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021892
work_keys_str_mv AT barbeaupauline comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT wolfedianna comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT yazdifatemeh comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT ricedanielleb comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT dubecatherine comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT kanjisalmaan comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT rostomalaa comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT skidmorebecky comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT moherdavid comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis
AT huttonbrian comparativesafetyofbowelcleansersprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis