B K Enestvedt1, M Brian Fennerty, A Zaman, G M Eisen. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. brintha.enestvedt@uphs.upenn.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent clinical trials (RCT) of bowel preparation, Golytely was more efficacious than MiraLAX. We hypothesised that there is a difference in adenoma detection between Golytely and MiraLAX. AIMS: To compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between these bowel preparations, and to identify independent predictors of bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of an RCT that assessed efficacy and patient tolerability of Golytely vs. MiraLAX/Gatorade in average risk screening colonoscopy patients. Bowel preparation quality was measured with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). An excellent/good equivalent BBPS score was defined as ≥ 7. Polyp pathology review was performed. ADR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies with an adenoma. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety patients were prospectively enrolled (87 MiraLAX, 103 Golytely). Golytely had a higher rate of a BBPS score ≥ 7 (82.5% vs. MiraLAX 67.8%, P=0.02). The ADR in the Golytely cohort was 26.2% (27/103), and was 16.1% (14/87) for MiraLAX (P = 0.091). On multivariate analyses, Golytely was 2.13 × more likely to be associated with a BBPS ≥ 7 (95% CI 1.05-4.32, P = 0.04) and 2.28 × more likely to be associated with adenoma detection (95% CI 1.05-4.98, P = 0.04) than MiraLAX. CONCLUSIONS: Golytely was more efficacious than MiraLAX in bowel cleansing, and was independently associated with both bowel prep quality (BBPS ≥ 7) and higher adenoma detection. Golytely should be used as first line for bowel prep for colonoscopy. Studies with larger populations are needed to confirm these results.
BACKGROUND: In recent clinical trials (RCT) of bowel preparation, Golytely was more efficacious than MiraLAX. We hypothesised that there is a difference in adenoma detection between Golytely and MiraLAX. AIMS: To compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between these bowel preparations, and to identify independent predictors of bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of an RCT that assessed efficacy and patient tolerability of Golytely vs. MiraLAX/Gatorade in average risk screening colonoscopy patients. Bowel preparation quality was measured with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). An excellent/good equivalent BBPS score was defined as ≥ 7. Polyp pathology review was performed. ADR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies with an adenoma. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety patients were prospectively enrolled (87 MiraLAX, 103 Golytely). Golytely had a higher rate of a BBPS score ≥ 7 (82.5% vs. MiraLAX 67.8%, P=0.02). The ADR in the Golytely cohort was 26.2% (27/103), and was 16.1% (14/87) for MiraLAX (P = 0.091). On multivariate analyses, Golytely was 2.13 × more likely to be associated with a BBPS ≥ 7 (95% CI 1.05-4.32, P = 0.04) and 2.28 × more likely to be associated with adenoma detection (95% CI 1.05-4.98, P = 0.04) than MiraLAX. CONCLUSIONS:Golytely was more efficacious than MiraLAX in bowel cleansing, and was independently associated with both bowel prep quality (BBPS ≥ 7) and higher adenoma detection. Golytely should be used as first line for bowel prep for colonoscopy. Studies with larger populations are needed to confirm these results.
Authors: Phillip Gu; Daniel Lew; Sun Jung Oh; Aarshi Vipani; Jeffrey Ko; Kevin Hsu; Ebrahim Mirakhor; Varun Pattisapu; Tia Bullen; Garth Fuller; Brennan M R Spiegel; Christopher V Almario Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Grace Clarke Hillyer; Benjamin Lebwohl; Corey H Basch; Charles E Basch; Fay Kastrinos; Beverly J Insel; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Paul C Schroy; David A Lieberman; Judith R Logan; Michael Zurfluh; Brian C Jacobson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Michael C Sulz; Arne Kröger; Meher Prakash; Christine N Manser; Henriette Heinrich; Benjamin Misselwitz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kathryn Anastassopoulos; Francis A Farraye; Tyler Knight; Sam Colman; Mark vB Cleveland; Russell W Pelham Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 3.199