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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |