Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC)TRIAL REGISTRATION: Multi-centre, Randomised, Observer-blind, Comparative Trial EU-CTR 2010-019317-22 at clinicaltrialsregister.eu
submitted 20 November 2017
accepted after revision 05 March 2018
01 August 2018 (online)
Background and study aims Quality of inspection during colonoscopy is strictly related to the level of cleansing. High-volume (PEG-based) solutions are highly effective and safe, but their high volume affects tolerability and compliance. The aim of this study was to compare a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone solution (PMF 104,Clensia) with a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid solution (PEG-ASC; Moviprep).
Patients and methods This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF 104 and PEG-ASC. In both groups, patients were instructed to take a full-dose regimen the evening before if colonoscopy was scheduled before 11 am to 12 pm, or to take a split regimen if colonoscopy was scheduled after 11 am to 12 pm. The primary end-point was an equivalence between PMF104 and PEG-ASC in the rate of adequate level of cleansing (Ottawa scale ≤ 6), with safety, mucosal visibility, tolerability, acceptance and compliance being also assessed.
Results Of the 403 enrolled, 367 patients (Mean age [SD]: 55.6 (14.4) years; male:166 [45.2 %]) were included in the per protocol (PP) analysis: 184 being randomized in the PMF 104 group and 183 in the PEG-ASC group. Successful bowel cleansing was 78.3 % and 74.3 % in PMF104 and in PEG-ASC, respectively (P = 0.37). Both preparations were equally safe (mild adverse events were observed in 9.2 % and 9.3 % of patients in the PMF104 and in the PEG-ASC group, respectively) and acceptable (no or mild distress during the intake in 81.4 % and 80.8 % in the PMF104 in the PEG-ASC, respectively [P = 0.74]).
Conclusion The new low-volume product Clensia is equivalent to the reference low-volume PEG-ASC in terms of bowel cleansing, safety and acceptance.
- 1 Lee TJ, Nair S, Beintaris I. et al. Recent advances in colonoscopy. F1000Res 2016; 11;5: 328
- 2 Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC. et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-750
- 3 von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 51-59
- 4 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
- 5 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
- 6 Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A. et al. Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 396-405; quiz e14-15
- 7 Radaelli F, Paggi S, Hassan C. et al. Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme. Gut 2017; 66: 270-277
- 8 Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142-150
- 9 Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB. et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 903-924
- 10 Bucci C, Rotondano G, Hassan C. et al. Optimal bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: split the dose! A series of meta-analyses of controlled studies. . Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 566-576
- 11 Zorzi M, Valiante F, Germanà B. et al. Comparison between different colon cleansing products for screening colonoscopy. A noninferiority trial in population-based screening programs in Italy. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 223-231
- 12 Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C. et al. Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 79-88
- 13 Xie Q, Chen L, Zhao F. et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of low-volume polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid versus standard-volume polyethylene glycol solution as bowel preparations for colonoscopy. PloS One 2014; 9: e99092
- 14 Spada C, Cesaro P, Bazzoli F. et al. Evaluation of Clensia®, a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 651-656
- 15 Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
- 16 Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA. et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1315-1329; quiz 1314-1330