Cargando…

Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol‐augmented BP (M‐BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unsele...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mangira, Dileep, Ket, Shara, Dwyer, Jeremy, Secomb, Robyn, Reynolds, John, Brown, Gregor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6788372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31633041
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12170
_version_ 1783458473754755072
author Mangira, Dileep
Ket, Shara
Dwyer, Jeremy
Secomb, Robyn
Reynolds, John
Brown, Gregor
author_facet Mangira, Dileep
Ket, Shara
Dwyer, Jeremy
Secomb, Robyn
Reynolds, John
Brown, Gregor
author_sort Mangira, Dileep
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIM: The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol‐augmented BP (M‐BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients. METHODS: Adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M‐BP (one sachet of macrogol‐based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split‐dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded. RESULTS: This randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M‐BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5–82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9–78.8%), with a Pearson χ (2) test P‐value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut‐off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP – 5.3% and M‐BP – 6.6% P = 0.66). CONCLUSION: The addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6788372
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67883722019-10-18 Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial Mangira, Dileep Ket, Shara Dwyer, Jeremy Secomb, Robyn Reynolds, John Brown, Gregor JGH Open Original Articles BACKGROUND AND AIM: The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol‐augmented BP (M‐BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients. METHODS: Adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M‐BP (one sachet of macrogol‐based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split‐dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded. RESULTS: This randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M‐BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5–82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9–78.8%), with a Pearson χ (2) test P‐value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut‐off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP – 5.3% and M‐BP – 6.6% P = 0.66). CONCLUSION: The addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation. Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2019-04-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6788372/ /pubmed/31633041 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12170 Text en © 2019 Alfred Health, Melbourne. JGH Open: An open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Mangira, Dileep
Ket, Shara
Dwyer, Jeremy
Secomb, Robyn
Reynolds, John
Brown, Gregor
Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial
title Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial
title_full Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial
title_fullStr Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial
title_full_unstemmed Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial
title_short Augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: A randomized trial
title_sort augmentation with pre‐emptive macrogol‐based osmotic laxative does not significantly improve standard bowel preparation in unselected patients: a randomized trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6788372/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31633041
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12170
work_keys_str_mv AT mangiradileep augmentationwithpreemptivemacrogolbasedosmoticlaxativedoesnotsignificantlyimprovestandardbowelpreparationinunselectedpatientsarandomizedtrial
AT ketshara augmentationwithpreemptivemacrogolbasedosmoticlaxativedoesnotsignificantlyimprovestandardbowelpreparationinunselectedpatientsarandomizedtrial
AT dwyerjeremy augmentationwithpreemptivemacrogolbasedosmoticlaxativedoesnotsignificantlyimprovestandardbowelpreparationinunselectedpatientsarandomizedtrial
AT secombrobyn augmentationwithpreemptivemacrogolbasedosmoticlaxativedoesnotsignificantlyimprovestandardbowelpreparationinunselectedpatientsarandomizedtrial
AT reynoldsjohn augmentationwithpreemptivemacrogolbasedosmoticlaxativedoesnotsignificantlyimprovestandardbowelpreparationinunselectedpatientsarandomizedtrial
AT browngregor augmentationwithpreemptivemacrogolbasedosmoticlaxativedoesnotsignificantlyimprovestandardbowelpreparationinunselectedpatientsarandomizedtrial