Assessment of tolerance and acceptability between mannitol solution and polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a three-center study

Lvez, Jean Félix Piñ Erúa-Gonsá; Zambrano-Infantino, Rosanna Del Carmen; Baptista, Alberto; Sulbaran, Mariseli; Camaray, Noheltriz

doi:10.47892/rgp.2020.401.1023

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, addressing existing barriers such as the discomfort produced by bowel preparation could itself facilitate individuals' participation; studies show that CRC screening participants have a preference for non-laxative [60] and low-volume [118] preparations. In fact, some of the included studies have investigated alternatives to the commonly used standard preparation PEG-ELS 4L, such as Sodium Phosphate (NaP) tablets [126], Mannitol solutions [127] and low-volume preparations such as Moviprep ® AscPEG-2L (PEG combined with ascorbic acid) and CitraFleet ® PiMg (sodium picosulfate combined with magnesium citrate) [118]. NaP tablets, for example, were preferred over the PEG solution by 66% of the 53 participants interviewed by Gurudu et al [126].…”

Section: Potential Addressing Measures For Increasing Participation With Visual Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…NaP tablets, for example, were preferred over the PEG solution by 66% of the 53 participants interviewed by Gurudu et al [126]. In the study performed by Piñerúa-Gonsálvez et al [127], the PEG solution was also less chosen to be used again in future colonoscopies compared to the mannitol solution (71.4% of the individuals in the PEG group vs. 82.9% of the individuals in the mannitol group). Finally, Rodriíguez de Miguel et al [118] who, studied PEG-ELS 4L-related adverse effects compared to the low volume preparations on a cohort of 292 individuals, found that participants using PEG-ELS 4L required antiemetics more often compared to the AscPEG-2L and PiMg groups (22.4% vs. 2.1% and 8.2%, respectively; p < 0.0001).…”

Section: Potential Addressing Measures For Increasing Participation With Visual Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regardless the type of test, the included articles show a specific trend in terms of perceived barriers to screening. In particular, feelings of embarrassment [91,[106][107][108]114,115], discomfort [109,114,127], disgust [52,107,114,132] and fear of pain [20,44,52,67,106,107,113,138] were common across various study populations undergoing different procedures.…”

Section: General Preferences Other Barriers To Crc Screening In Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Tran

Ferrari

Hoeck

et al. 2021

Gastrointestinal Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the recognized benefits of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, uptake is still suboptimal in many countries. In addressing this issue, one important element that has not received sufficient attention is population preference. Our review provides a comprehensive summary of the up-to-date evidence relative to this topic. Four OVID databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, and Global Health. Among the 742 articles generated, 154 full texts were selected for a more thorough evaluation based on predefined inclusion criteria. Finally, 83 studies were included in our review. The general population preferred either colonoscopy as the most accurate test, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as the least invasive for CRC screening. The emerging blood test (SEPT9) and capsule colonoscopy (nanopill), with the potential to overcome the pitfalls of the available techniques, were also favored. Gender, age, race, screening experience, education and beliefs, the perceived risk of CRC, insurance, and health status influence one’s test preference. To improve uptake, CRC screening programs should consider offering test alternatives and tailoring the content and delivery of screening information to the public’s preferences. Other logistical measures in terms of the types of bowel preparation, gender of endoscopist, stool collection device, and reward for participants can also be useful.

show abstract

Section: Potential Addressing Measures For Increasing Participation With Visual Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Potential Addressing Measures For Increasing Participation With Visual Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Preferences Other Barriers To Crc Screening In Generalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Tran

Ferrari

Hoeck

et al. 2021

Gastrointestinal Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If necessary, cleaning enema is added. The bowel cleaning effect is not good, and the preparation time is long [ 4 ]. Traditional bowel preparation requires a long time for patients' preoperative diet control, and high-pressure enema may cause adverse reactions such as bowel edema and ascites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Compound Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder on the Quality of Gastrobowel Preparation before Enteroscopy Intervention

Yuan

Zhang

et al. 2022

Emergency Medicine International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To study the effect of compound polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder (PGEP) on the quality of gastrobowel preparation before enteroscopy intervention. Methods. From March 2021 to January 2022, among the patients who needed enteroscopy in our hospital, 280 patients who volunteered for this study were randomly selected as the research objects. All the subjects were randomly divided into the control group (140 cases) and the observation group (140 cases). Both groups received routine treatment before enteroscopy intervention. On this basis, patients in the control group were given 9 g of senna every day before operation, and 250 ml of 20% mannitol and 2500 ml of water were taken orally from 9:00 am to 11:00 am on the day of examination. Patients in the observation group took PGEP orally from 9:00 am to 11:00 am. The effective rate of bowel cleaning, the frequency of defecation and duration of diarrhea, the levels of blood electrolyte indexes such as Na+, K+, and Cl− before and after the intervention, and the incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results. The effective rate of bowel cleaning in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group ( P < 0.05 ). The frequency of defecation and duration of diarrhea in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group ( P < 0.05 ). Compared with the control group, the levels of blood electrolyte indexes in the observation group after the intervention were not statistically significant ( P > 0.05 ). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. Using PGEP for gastrobowel preparation before enteroscopy intervention can achieve high bowel cleaning efficiency, short bowel preparation time, and low incidence of adverse reactions, which does not affect the water-electrolyte balance of patients, and the psychological state of patients before enteroscopy intervention is more stable. This program is worthy of clinical promotion.

show abstract

“…Notably, general safety and tolerability were comparable between mannitol and PEG formulations. All published studies used doses of mannitol of between 50 and 150 g, given in a single dose, except for one study which tested a split dose of mannitol solution [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study

Spada

Fiori

Uebel³

et al. 2022

Eur J Clin Pharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety. Aims The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study. Methods The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study. Results The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations. Conclusions The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

show abstract

Assessment of tolerance and acceptability between mannitol solution and polyethylene glycol as bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a three-center study

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Have We Addressed Concerns and Needs of the Target Population?

Effect of Compound Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder on the Quality of Gastrobowel Preparation before Enteroscopy Intervention

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About