Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2251-3372
Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowel preparation for pediatric elective colonoscopy: Phase 3 RCT
Supported by: Alfasigma SpAClinical Trial: Registration number (trial ID): NCT03106922, Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/), Type of Study: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind study
Abstract
Background and study aims Currently available polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations continue to represent a challenge in children. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG preparation with a conventional PEG-electrolyte solution (PEG-ES) in children and adolescents.
Patients and methods This was a multicenter, randomized, observer-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 clinical trial, where patients were randomized between PMF104 (Clensia) and a conventional PEG-ES (Klean-Prep), and stratified by age stratum (2 to <6; 6 to < 12;12 to <18 years). The primary endpoint was to test the non-inferiority of PMF104 versus PEG-ES, in terms of colon cleansing. Safety, tolerability, acceptability, palatability, and compliance were also assessed. Efficacy endpoints were analyzed in the per protocol set (PPS) and full analysis set (FAS) and safety and tolerability endpoints in the safety set (SAF).
Results Of the 356 patients enrolled, 258 were included in the PPS, 346 in the FAS, and 351 in the SAF. Non-inferiority of PMF104 was confirmed for children aged > 6 years and for all age groups in PPS and FAS, respectively. Optimal compliance was reported more frequently in the PMF104 than in the PEG-ES group, in both PPS (86.1% vs. 68.4%) and FAS (82.9% vs. 65.3%).
Both preparations were equally safe and tolerable. Palatability and acceptability were considered better in the PMF104 group than in the PEG-ES group (27.1% vs. 15.3% and 15.3% vs. 3.5%, respectively).
Conclusions In children aged 6 to 17 years, the new low-volume product PMF104 is non-inferior to the reference PEG-ES in terms of bowel cleansing, safety, and tolerability, with slightly better results in compliance, palatability, and acceptability.
Keywords
Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Quality and logistical aspects - Preparation - Pediatric endoscopyPublication History
Received: 07 November 2022
Accepted after revision: 17 January 2024
Accepted Manuscript online:
22 January 2024
Article published online:
26 April 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Lee KK, Anderson MA, Baron TH. et al. Modifications in endoscopic practice for pediatric patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 6: 1-9 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.07.008. (PMID: 18155419)
- 2 Patel MG, Pashankar DS. Bowel preparation in children: Is polyethylene glycol an answer?. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013; 56: 115 DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31827e1f3d. (PMID: 23201706)
- 3 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058. (PMID: 25480100)
- 4 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397 DOI: 10.1177/2050640617700014. (PMID: 28507745)
- 5 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ. et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: The European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384 DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2. (PMID: 15758907)
- 6 Reddy P, Mencin A, Lebwohl B. Risk factors for suboptimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy in pediatric patients. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2021; 73: e1-e6 DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003114. (PMID: 33661246)
- 7 Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: Oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25: 373-384 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03212.x. (PMID: 17269992)
- 8 Steffen RM, Wyllie R, Sivak MV. et al. Colonoscopy in the pediatric patient. J Pediatr 1989; 115: 507-514 DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3476(89)80272-0. (PMID: 2677291)
- 9 Pasquarella CS, Kaplan B, Mahajan L. et al. A Single-center review of pediatric colonoscopy quality indicators. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2019; 68: 648-654 DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002239. (PMID: 30562311)
- 10 Fox VL. Pediatric endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2000; 10: 175-194 DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12133. (PMID: 34431620)
- 11 Hunter A, Mamula P. Bowel preparation for pediatric colonoscopy procedures. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2010; 51: 254-261 DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181eb6a1c. (PMID: 20683200)
- 12 Wexner SD, Force T, Beck DE. et al. A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy: Prepared by a Task Force From The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 894-909
- 13 Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775-794 DOI: 10.1055/a-0959-0505. (PMID: 31295746)
- 14 Mamula P, Nema N. Bowel preparation for pediatric colonoscopy. Front Pediatr 2021; 9: 705624 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.705624. (PMID: 34540766)
- 15 Turner D, Levine A, Weiss B. et al. Evidence-based recommendations for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy in children: A report from a national working group. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 1063-1070
- 16 Walia R, Steffen R, Feinberg L. et al. Tolerability, safety, and efficacy of peg 3350 as a 1-day bowel preparation in children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013; 56: 225-228 DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182758c69. (PMID: 23059650)
- 17 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 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.01.167. (PMID: 28233684)
- 18 Kump P, Hassan C, Spada C. et al. Efficacy and safety of a new low-volume PEG with citrate and simethicone bowl preparation for colonoscopy (Clensia): a multicenter randomized observer-blind clinical trial vs. a low-volume PEG with ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC). Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E907-E913
- 19 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057. (PMID: 19136102)
- 20 ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1905-1942
- 21 Di Nardo G, Aloi M, Cucchiara S. et al. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy: An RCT. Pediatrics 2014; 134: 249-256 DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-0131. (PMID: 25002661)