Evaluation of Clensia ® , a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: Multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG
| Autor: | Giorgio Maria Saracco, Lucio Petruzziello, Franco Bazzoli, Cristiano Crosta, Lorenzo Fuccio, Maria A. Bianco, L. Buri, Mariachiara Campanale, Giuseppe De Roberto, Catrin Simeth, Cristiano Spada, Chiara Giordanino, Gianluca Rotondano, Danilo Consalvo, Giancarla Fiori, Chiara Elia, Liza Ceroni, Guido Costamagna, Paola Cesaro, Livio Cipolletta |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Spada, Cristiano, Cesaro, Paola, Bazzoli, Franco, Saracco, Giorgio Maria, Cipolletta, Livio, Buri, Luigi, Crosta, Cristiano, Petruzziello, Lucio, Ceroni, Liza, Fuccio, Lorenzo, Giordanino, Chiara, Elia, Chiara, Rotondano, Gianluca, Bianco, Maria A, Simeth, Catrin, Consalvo, Danilo, De Roberto, Giuseppe, Fiori, Giancarla, Campanale, Mariachiara, Costamagna, Guido |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Polyethylene glycol medicine.medical_treatment Colon cleansing Colonoscopy Gastroenterology Randomised clinical trial law.invention 03 medical and health sciences chemistry.chemical_compound 0302 clinical medicine Bowel preparation Randomized controlled trial law Simeticone Internal medicine PEG ratio Clinical endpoint medicine Citrates Hepatology medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry technology industry and agriculture chemistry Tolerability 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis 030211 gastroenterology & hepatology business Citrate |
| Zdroj: | Digestive and Liver Disease. 49:651-656 |
| ISSN: | 1590-8658 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.167 |
| Popis: | Background Success of colonoscopy is linked to the adequacy of bowel cleansing. Polyethylene glycol 4 L (PEG 4 L) solutions are widely used for colonic cleansing but with limitations concerning tolerability and acceptability. Aim To demonstrate the equivalence of a new low-volume PEG containing citrates and simeticone (Clensia) versus a standard PEG 4 L. Methods In this, multicentre, randomised, observer-blind trial, patients received either Clensia 2 L or PEG 4 L solution. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with colon cleansing evaluated as excellent or good. Results 422 patients received Clensia (n = 213) or PEG 4 L (n = 209). Rate of excellent/good bowel cleansing was 73.6% and 72.3% in Clensia and PEG 4 L group respectively. Clensia was demonstrated to be equivalent to PEG 4 L. No SAEs were observed. Clensia showed better gastrointestinal tolerability (37.0% vs 25.4%). The acceptability was significantly better with Clensia in terms of proportion of subjects who felt no distress (Clensia 72.8% vs PEG 4 L 63%, P = 0.0314) and willingness-to-repeat (93.9% vs 82.2%, P = 0.0002). The rate of optimal compliance was similar with both formulations (91.1% for Clensia vs 90.9% for PEG 4 L, P = 0.9388). Conclusions The low-volume Clensia is equally effective and safe in bowel cleansing compared to the standard PEG 4 L, with better gastrointestinal tolerability and acceptability. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect