Zheng Jin1, Yi Lu1, Yi Zhou2, Biao Gong3. 1. Digestive Endoscopy Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China. 2. Shanghai Institute of Hematology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 3. Digestive Endoscopy Center, Department of Gastroenterology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China. gbercp616@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) drew inconsistent conclusions. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of the two agents for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2015 was acquired, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. We calculated the pooled estimates of bowel cleanliness, polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR), completion of preparation, willingness to repeat identical bowel preparation, and adverse events by using relative risk (RR) with random-effects models. A non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing SPMC to PEG for bowel cleaning efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 25 RCTs were qualified for analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two agents in bowel cleanliness, but the effect direction showed a trend in favor of PEG (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.86-1.01, P = 0.07). The non-inferiority analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of SPMC by retaining at least 90 % of the effect of PEG. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two agents in PDR (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.82-1.08, P = 0.37) and ADR (RR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.74-1.05, P = 0.16). However, a higher proportion of patients were likely to complete SPMC preparation (RR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.04-1.13, P < 0.001) and were willing to repeat SPMC preparation (RR 1.44; 95 % CI 1.25-1.67, P < 0.001). The total number of adverse events was significantly lower in the SPMC group (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.66-0.93, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: SPMC, with better tolerability and less frequent adverse events, demonstrated non-inferior bowel cleaning efficacy than that of the PEG. Large-scale, well-organized, head-to-head studies are warranted.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies comparing sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) drew inconsistent conclusions. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of the two agents for colonoscopy preparation. METHODS: A search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 2015 was acquired, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. We calculated the pooled estimates of bowel cleanliness, polyp/adenoma detection rate (PDR/ADR), completion of preparation, willingness to repeat identical bowel preparation, and adverse events by using relative risk (RR) with random-effects models. A non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing SPMC to PEG for bowel cleaning efficacy. RESULTS: A total of 25 RCTs were qualified for analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two agents in bowel cleanliness, but the effect direction showed a trend in favor of PEG (RR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.86-1.01, P = 0.07). The non-inferiority analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of SPMC by retaining at least 90 % of the effect of PEG. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two agents in PDR (RR 0.94; 95 % CI 0.82-1.08, P = 0.37) and ADR (RR 0.88; 95 % CI 0.74-1.05, P = 0.16). However, a higher proportion of patients were likely to complete SPMC preparation (RR 1.08; 95 % CI 1.04-1.13, P < 0.001) and were willing to repeat SPMC preparation (RR 1.44; 95 % CI 1.25-1.67, P < 0.001). The total number of adverse events was significantly lower in the SPMC group (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.66-0.93, P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS:SPMC, with better tolerability and less frequent adverse events, demonstrated non-inferior bowel cleaning efficacy than that of the PEG. Large-scale, well-organized, head-to-head studies are warranted.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: David A Johnson; Alan N Barkun; Larry B Cohen; Jason A Dominitz; Tonya Kaltenbach; Myriam Martel; Douglas J Robertson; C Richard Boland; Frances M Giardello; David A Lieberman; Theodore R Levin; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Dina Kao; Eoin Lalor; Gurpal Sandha; Richard N Fedorak; Bloeme van der Knoop; Stieneke Doornweerd; Harmke van Kooten; Eline Schreuders; William Midodzi; Sander Veldhuyzen van Zanten Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Philip O Katz; Douglas K Rex; Michael Epstein; Nav K Grandhi; Stephen Vanner; Lawrence C Hookey; Vivian Alderfer; Raymond E Joseph Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Vladimir Kojecky; Jan Matous; Radan Keil; Milan Dastych; Radek Kroupa; Zdena Zadorova; Michal Varga; Jiri Dolina; Milan Kment; Ales Hep Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-09-24 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Seung In Seo; Jin Gu Kang; Hyoung Su Kim; Myoung Kuk Jang; Hak Yang Kim; Woon Geon Shin Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Antonio Afonso de Miranda Neto; Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura; Kelly E Hathorn; Francisco Tustumi; Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura; Igor Braga Ribeiro Journal: Clin Exp Gastroenterol Date: 2020-10-07
Authors: Ilvy van Lieshout; Isabelle D Munsterman; Anne M Eskes; Jolanda M Maaskant; René van der Hulst Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Jeremy P Dwyer; Jonathan Y C Tan; Eldho Paul; Catherine Bunn; Dileep Mangira; Robyn Secomb; Peter R Gibson; Gregor Brown Journal: JGH Open Date: 2017-09-18