Colon Preparation With 2L PEG in Combination With Lubiprostone vs 4L PEG
NCT ID: NCT04138004
Last Updated: 2021-08-11
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
COMPLETED
Clinical Phase
PHASE4
Total Enrollment
140 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2019-12-01
Study Completion Date
2021-07-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Colonoscopy is the current standard method for examination of the colon. Bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy is the essential prerequisite to ensure complete mucosal visualization and lesion identification.(1,2) Suboptimal preparations are associated with missed diagnoses, longer procedure times and increased costs related to the repeat procedures and shortened intervals between procedures.(3-5) Inadequate preparations have been noted in around 25 % cases in the US.(4,6) This has been attributed primarily to poor patient tolerance to the standard colon preparations.
Osmotically balanced polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte bowel lavage solutions were introduced in 1980.(7) These PEG based solutions are the most commonly used bowel preparations today.(7) They have high efficacy, are safe and are associated with minimal fluid and electrolyte imbalance. However the major drawback of these preparations is the taste and the large volumes required with associated nausea, cramping and vomiting.(8) This often results in poor compliance and tolerance with resultant poor preparation and improper visualization. A pooled analysis of 15 trials found that at least 29 % of patients were unable to complete their PEG solution.(9) Lubiprostone (LB) is a locally acting selective Type 2 chloride channel activator which causes intestinal fluid secretion. This results in increased softened stool and increased intestinal transit without the loss of either net intravascular fluid or electrolytes.(10) Peak plasma levels occur approximately 1.14 h after oral administration of a single 24 microgram dose, and the half-life of lubiprostone (t½) has been estimated at approximately 3 h.(11,12) LB is currently approved for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation and is generally well tolerated with an excellent side effect profile. Even long term usage has not shown clinically significant changes in electrolyte levels.(10,13) Our hypothesis was that administration of LB in addition to low volume (2-L) split-dose PEG would improve the adequacy of the bowel preparation as comparable as standard 4-L split-dose PEG regimens. Additionally, it could improve patient tolerability and decreased side effects related to the large volume of PEG regimens. Accordingly, we conducted this prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Osmotically balanced polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte bowel lavage solutions were introduced in 1980.(7) These PEG based solutions are the most commonly used bowel preparations today.(7) They have high efficacy, are safe and are associated with minimal fluid and electrolyte imbalance. However the major drawback of these preparations is the taste and the large volumes required with associated nausea, cramping and vomiting.(8) This often results in poor compliance and tolerance with resultant poor preparation and improper visualization. A pooled analysis of 15 trials found that at least 29 % of patients were unable to complete their PEG solution.(9) Lubiprostone (LB) is a locally acting selective Type 2 chloride channel activator which causes intestinal fluid secretion. This results in increased softened stool and increased intestinal transit without the loss of either net intravascular fluid or electrolytes.(10) Peak plasma levels occur approximately 1.14 h after oral administration of a single 24 microgram dose, and the half-life of lubiprostone (t½) has been estimated at approximately 3 h.(11,12) LB is currently approved for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation and is generally well tolerated with an excellent side effect profile. Even long term usage has not shown clinically significant changes in electrolyte levels.(10,13) Our hypothesis was that administration of LB in addition to low volume (2-L) split-dose PEG would improve the adequacy of the bowel preparation as comparable as standard 4-L split-dose PEG regimens. Additionally, it could improve patient tolerability and decreased side effects related to the large volume of PEG regimens. Accordingly, we conducted this prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Effect of Adding Lubiprostone to Standard Large-Volume PEG-ELS on The Quality of Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation
NCT04361656
Colonoscopy Preparation
WITHDRAWN
Investigation of PICOPREP and PEG-ELS for Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy
NCT01356407
Colonoscopy
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Comparison of Bowel Preparation Using 2 Liter Polyethylene Glycol Regimen Plus Elobixibat Versus 4-Liter Polyethylene Glycol Regimen
NCT06436833
Bowel Preparation Solution
Colonoscopy
RECRUITING
NA
Split Dose Golytely With Amitiza Pretreatment Versus Split Dose Golytely Plus Placebo in Outpatient Colonoscopy
NCT00611442
Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy
COMPLETED
NA
Patient Tolerability and Efficacy of Bowel Preparation With Split Dose Picosalax vs. Split Dose PEG
NCT02070341
Bowel Preparation
TERMINATED
PHASE4
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Study design:
This was a single center prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial to compare the quality of bowel preparation using 2-L PEG with LB vs. 4-L PEG conducted from September 2019 to June 2020 at Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Bangkok, Thailand. It was performed in accordance with the clinical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and informed consent was obtained from all the participants before their enrollment. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Rajavithi Hospital. Recruitment, enrollment, randomization, withdrawal, and completion were done according to the consort guidelines.
Bowel preparation method:
PEG used in the present study was Niflec® (Meiji, Japan), which composed of macrogol 4,000 plus electrolytes (sodium sulfate, sodium hydrogen carbonate, sodium chloride, and potassium chloride) and is taken by diluting one sachet into 2-L of plain water. The participants were instructed to take 250 mL every 15 min untill the entire solution was consumed. In cases of 4-L split-dosage, half dose preparation started in the evening of the pre-procedure day at about 8.00 to 10.00 pm and the remaining dose was given in the morning at about 5.00 to 7.00 am on the procedure day. In cases of 2-L split-dosage, half dose preparation started in the evening of the pre-procedure day at about 8.00 to 9.00 pm and the remaining dose was given in the morning at about 5.00 to 6.00 am on the procedure day. And these patients, one 24 mcg tablet of LB was given 2 hours before PEG ingestion (at 6.00 pm of the pre-procedure day).
Dietary advice was given to all patients. Consumption of fruit, legumes, or vegetable was forbidden 2 days before the procedure. On the day before colonoscopy patients had a light breakfast and lunch, but a liquid dinner (clear soup). Solid food was not allowed at the start of the bowel preparation phase. All patients were instructed to fast from midnight before procedure day, but some anti-hypertensive drugs and minimal plain water were permitted.
Randomization:
All participants attended an informational session before colonoscopy where the participants were counseled about the nature of the study and written informed consent was obtained. The research coordinator used a computer to generate a randomization table with blocks of 8. Allocation concealment was maintained through the use of consecutively numbered sealed envelopes. The allocation ratio was 1:1 in 2-L PEG with LB (Group A) or 4-L PEG (Group B).
An endoscopy nurse assigned the participants to their group and instructed the participants on the proper use of their assigned bowel preparation method as well as dietary advice. Gastroenterologists and investigators were blinded to the allocation groups. The participants were given a questionnaire measured the tolerability and side effects of the bowel preparation regimen, to be completed once their bowel preparation was finished and before coming to the hospital for the colonoscopy.
Colonoscopy:
All colonoscopies were performed by 3 experienced gastroenterologists (minimum experience of 1000 procedures; Apichet Sirinawasatien, Kanokpoj Chanpiwat, and Tanyaporn Chantarojanasiri) at the Rajavithi Hospital. A standard protocol for insertion, withdrawal, and observation was followed. All colonoscopies were performed using video colonoscopes (CF 180, Olympus, Japan) under moderate sedation.
The colon segment including the rectum and extending up to the splenic flexure was termed as left colon; the segment between splenic flexure and hepatic flexure was termed transverse colon; while colon segment proximal to hepatic flexure, including the cecum was termed right colon for the purpose of this study. A complete colonoscopy was defined as reaching the cecum determined by the visualization and documentation of the ileocecal valve and appendiceal orifice. Failed colonoscopy was defined as endoscope could not reach ileocecal valve and cecum. Overall procedure times was the times between the endoscope enter and withdraw from the anus.
During the insertion of the scope, two representative pictures were taken from each of these three segments to document the colon preparation. An early colonoscopy was defined as a procedure initiated during 8-11 am while those started after 11 am were considered the late procedure.
Colon cleansing scale:
The investigators used Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score to evaluate the adequacy of the preparation. Each colonic segment was graded from 0 (solid stools) to 3 (no residual staining). The aggregate score was obtained by adding the score for all 3 segments, thus resulting in a score between 0 and 9. A score ≤4 was considered a poor colon preparation, resulting in a recommendation for a repeat procedure. A score of 8-9 was considered excellent preparation while a score of 5-7 was considered adequate preparation.
The colon preparation was graded by analyzing photo documentation obtained during a colonoscopy by three gastroenterologists (AS, KC, and TC) after the procedure finished. The mean BBPS score of each patient was calculated and recorded the result on a separate standardized form.
Sample size calculation and statistical analysis:
Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. The Boston bowel preparation scale produces data that are approximately normally distributed. Two-group ANOVA was used to assess for the presence of group differences in the preparation scores while accounting for procedure time (early versus late). The proportion of adequate bowel preparation in each group was compared with a chi-square statistic. The secondary endpoints of tolerability and side effects were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
The sample size was calculated using two independent means formula (two-tailed test) based on data from a previous study in 2008,(16) in which the patient mean overall symptom questionnaire ratings of the PEG plus LB group was 3.7±1 compared to 3.2±1.1 in the controlled group (p = 0.003). The minimum required number of participants was calculated at 70 in each group in order to detect a significant association with 80% power (β =0.20) and a 5% probability of type I error (2-sided) (α =0.05).
This was a single center prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial to compare the quality of bowel preparation using 2-L PEG with LB vs. 4-L PEG conducted from September 2019 to June 2020 at Department of Medicine, Rajavithi Hospital, a tertiary referral center in Bangkok, Thailand. It was performed in accordance with the clinical principles laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and informed consent was obtained from all the participants before their enrollment. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the ethics committee of Rajavithi Hospital. Recruitment, enrollment, randomization, withdrawal, and completion were done according to the consort guidelines.
Bowel preparation method:
PEG used in the present study was Niflec® (Meiji, Japan), which composed of macrogol 4,000 plus electrolytes (sodium sulfate, sodium hydrogen carbonate, sodium chloride, and potassium chloride) and is taken by diluting one sachet into 2-L of plain water. The participants were instructed to take 250 mL every 15 min untill the entire solution was consumed. In cases of 4-L split-dosage, half dose preparation started in the evening of the pre-procedure day at about 8.00 to 10.00 pm and the remaining dose was given in the morning at about 5.00 to 7.00 am on the procedure day. In cases of 2-L split-dosage, half dose preparation started in the evening of the pre-procedure day at about 8.00 to 9.00 pm and the remaining dose was given in the morning at about 5.00 to 6.00 am on the procedure day. And these patients, one 24 mcg tablet of LB was given 2 hours before PEG ingestion (at 6.00 pm of the pre-procedure day).
Dietary advice was given to all patients. Consumption of fruit, legumes, or vegetable was forbidden 2 days before the procedure. On the day before colonoscopy patients had a light breakfast and lunch, but a liquid dinner (clear soup). Solid food was not allowed at the start of the bowel preparation phase. All patients were instructed to fast from midnight before procedure day, but some anti-hypertensive drugs and minimal plain water were permitted.
Randomization:
All participants attended an informational session before colonoscopy where the participants were counseled about the nature of the study and written informed consent was obtained. The research coordinator used a computer to generate a randomization table with blocks of 8. Allocation concealment was maintained through the use of consecutively numbered sealed envelopes. The allocation ratio was 1:1 in 2-L PEG with LB (Group A) or 4-L PEG (Group B).
An endoscopy nurse assigned the participants to their group and instructed the participants on the proper use of their assigned bowel preparation method as well as dietary advice. Gastroenterologists and investigators were blinded to the allocation groups. The participants were given a questionnaire measured the tolerability and side effects of the bowel preparation regimen, to be completed once their bowel preparation was finished and before coming to the hospital for the colonoscopy.
Colonoscopy:
All colonoscopies were performed by 3 experienced gastroenterologists (minimum experience of 1000 procedures; Apichet Sirinawasatien, Kanokpoj Chanpiwat, and Tanyaporn Chantarojanasiri) at the Rajavithi Hospital. A standard protocol for insertion, withdrawal, and observation was followed. All colonoscopies were performed using video colonoscopes (CF 180, Olympus, Japan) under moderate sedation.
The colon segment including the rectum and extending up to the splenic flexure was termed as left colon; the segment between splenic flexure and hepatic flexure was termed transverse colon; while colon segment proximal to hepatic flexure, including the cecum was termed right colon for the purpose of this study. A complete colonoscopy was defined as reaching the cecum determined by the visualization and documentation of the ileocecal valve and appendiceal orifice. Failed colonoscopy was defined as endoscope could not reach ileocecal valve and cecum. Overall procedure times was the times between the endoscope enter and withdraw from the anus.
During the insertion of the scope, two representative pictures were taken from each of these three segments to document the colon preparation. An early colonoscopy was defined as a procedure initiated during 8-11 am while those started after 11 am were considered the late procedure.
Colon cleansing scale:
The investigators used Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) score to evaluate the adequacy of the preparation. Each colonic segment was graded from 0 (solid stools) to 3 (no residual staining). The aggregate score was obtained by adding the score for all 3 segments, thus resulting in a score between 0 and 9. A score ≤4 was considered a poor colon preparation, resulting in a recommendation for a repeat procedure. A score of 8-9 was considered excellent preparation while a score of 5-7 was considered adequate preparation.
The colon preparation was graded by analyzing photo documentation obtained during a colonoscopy by three gastroenterologists (AS, KC, and TC) after the procedure finished. The mean BBPS score of each patient was calculated and recorded the result on a separate standardized form.
Sample size calculation and statistical analysis:
Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics. The Boston bowel preparation scale produces data that are approximately normally distributed. Two-group ANOVA was used to assess for the presence of group differences in the preparation scores while accounting for procedure time (early versus late). The proportion of adequate bowel preparation in each group was compared with a chi-square statistic. The secondary endpoints of tolerability and side effects were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
The sample size was calculated using two independent means formula (two-tailed test) based on data from a previous study in 2008,(16) in which the patient mean overall symptom questionnaire ratings of the PEG plus LB group was 3.7±1 compared to 3.2±1.1 in the controlled group (p = 0.003). The minimum required number of participants was calculated at 70 in each group in order to detect a significant association with 80% power (β =0.20) and a 5% probability of type I error (2-sided) (α =0.05).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Indication for Modification of Patient Status (Diagnosis)
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
The research coordinator used a computer to generate a randomization table with blocks of 8. Allocation concealment was maintained through the use of consecutively numbered sealed envelopes. The allocation ratio was 1:1 in 2-L PEG with LB (Group A) or 4-L PEG (Group B). An endoscopy nurse assigned patients to their group and instructed them on the proper use of their assigned bowel preparation method as well as dietary advice.
Primary Study Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Blinding Strategy
DOUBLE
Investigators
Outcome Assessors
Gastroenterologists and investigators were blinded to the allocation groups.
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
2-L PEG with LB
PEG used in the present study was Niflec® (Meiji, Japan), which composed of macrogol 4,000 plus electrolytes (sodium sulfate, sodium hydrogen carbonate, sodium chloride, and potassium chloride) and is taken by diluting one sachet into 2-L of plain water. The patients were instructed to take 250 mL every 15 min untill the entire solution was consumed.
In this group (2-L PEG), half dose preparation started in the evening of the pre-procedure day at about 8.00 to 9.00 pm and the remaining dose was given in the morning at about 5.00 to 6.00 am on the procedure day. And these patients, one 24 mcg tablet of LB was given 2 hours before PEG ingestion (at 6.00 pm of the pre-procedure day).
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
polyethylene glycol in combination with lubiprostone
Intervention Type
DRUG
2-litre polyethylene glycol split-dose in combination with one 24 mcg tablet of lubiprostone
4-L PEG
In this group (4-L PEG), half dose preparation started in the evening of the pre-procedure day at about 8.00 to 10.00 pm and the remaining dose was given in the morning at about 5.00 to 7.00 am on the procedure day.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
polyethylene glycol alone
Intervention Type
DRUG
4-litre polyethylene glycol split-dose
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
polyethylene glycol in combination with lubiprostone
2-litre polyethylene glycol split-dose in combination with one 24 mcg tablet of lubiprostone
Intervention Type
DRUG
polyethylene glycol alone
4-litre polyethylene glycol split-dose
Intervention Type
DRUG
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
NIFLEC in combination with Amitiza
NIFLEC alone
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* All patients between the age of 18 and 75 years with an appropriate indication for elective colonoscopy were considered eligible.
Exclusion Criteria
* We excluded patients who (i) suspected gastroparesis, gastric outlet or bowel obstruction; (ii) had a previous history of any gastrointestinal surgery apart from an appendectomy and cholecystectomy; (iii) had severe cardiac or pulmonary disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class 3 or 4), severe renal failure (creatinine clearance \<30 mL/min), decompensated liver cirrhosis or severe systemic illness; (iv) had a compromised swallowing reflex or impaired mental status; (v) were in a state of pregnancy or lactating; (vi) were hypersensitive or allergic to PEG or LB; or (vii) had a history of previous failure of adequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Maximum Eligible Age
75 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Department of Medical Services Ministry of Public Health of Thailand
OTHER_GOV
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Apichet Sirinawasatien, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Department of Medical Services Ministry of Public Health of Thailand
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Rajavithi hospital
Bangkok, , Thailand
Site Status
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Thailand
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, Ward EM. Global patterns of cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Aug;19(8):1893-907. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0437. Epub 2010 Jul 20.
Reference Type
RESULT
Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jul;97(7):1696-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05827.x.
Reference Type
RESULT
Bae SE, Kim KJ, Eum JB, Yang DH, Ye BD, Byeon JS, Myung SJ, Yang SK, Kim JH. A Comparison of 2 L of Polyethylene Glycol and 45 mL of Sodium Phosphate versus 4 L of Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Cleansing: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Gut Liver. 2013 Jul;7(4):423-9. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2013.7.4.423. Epub 2013 Jun 11.
Reference Type
RESULT
Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Jul;58(1):76-9. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.294.
Reference Type
RESULT
Seeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN, Thompson T, Shapiro JA, Vernon SW, Coates RJ. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer. 2004 May 15;100(10):2093-103. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20276.
Reference Type
RESULT
Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Vader JP. 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 Mar;61(3):378-84. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2.
Reference Type
RESULT
Davis GR, Santa Ana CA, Morawski SG, Fordtran JS. Development of a lavage solution associated with minimal water and electrolyte absorption or secretion. Gastroenterology. 1980 May;78(5 Pt 1):991-5.
Reference Type
RESULT
Adamcewicz M, Bearelly D, Porat G, Friedenberg FK. Mechanism of action and toxicities of purgatives used for colonoscopy preparation. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2011 Jan;7(1):89-101. doi: 10.1517/17425255.2011.542411.
Reference Type
RESULT
Tan JJ, Tjandra JJ. Which is the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy - a meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 2006 May;8(4):247-58. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.00970.x.
Reference Type
RESULT
Lacy BE, Levy LC. Lubiprostone: a chloride channel activator. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2007 Apr;41(4):345-51. doi: 10.1097/01.mcg.0000225665.68920.df.
Reference Type
RESULT
Lacy BE, Levy LC. Lubiprostone: a novel treatment for chronic constipation. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(2):357-64. doi: 10.2147/cia.s2938.
Reference Type
RESULT
Owen RT. Lubiprostone--a novel treatment for irritable bowel syndrome with constipation. Drugs Today (Barc). 2008 Sep;44(9):645-52. doi: 10.1358/dot.2008.44.9.1269852.
Reference Type
RESULT
Grigg E, Schubert MC, Hall J, Rahhal F, Raina D, Sridhar S, Chamberlain SM. Lubiprostone used with polyethylene glycol in diabetic patients enhances colonoscopy preparation quality. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Jul 16;2(7):263-7. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v2.i7.263.
Reference Type
RESULT
Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, Fix OK, Jacobson BC. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):620-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057. Epub 2009 Jan 10.
Reference Type
RESULT
Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72(4):686-92. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068.
Reference Type
RESULT
Stengel JZ, Jones DP. Single-dose lubiprostone along with split-dose PEG solution without dietary restrictions for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 Sep;103(9):2224-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.02053.x. Epub 2008 Aug 5.
Reference Type
RESULT
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
106/2562
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Low-volume Polyethylene Glycol Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy
NCT01929590
COMPLETED
PHASE3
1L- vs. 4L-PEG for Bowel Preparation Among Inpatients.
NCT04310332
COMPLETED
Amitiza® Plus GoLYTELY® (PEG) Versus Placebo Plus GoLYTELY® for Outpatient Colonoscopy Preparation
NCT00645801
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Efficacy, Tolerance and Safety of Split Dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: 4L Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Versus 1L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Sodium Picosulfate-magnesium Citrate (SPMC)
NCT04474002
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Single Center Comparison of 4 FDA Approved, Commercially Available Bowel Purgatives for Colonoscopy
NCT02124447
WITHDRAWN
NA
Study to Assess the Tolerability, Safety and Efficacy of an Adapted Gut Cleansing Solution in Routine Colon Cleansing Prior to Colonoscopies
NCT01251237
COMPLETED
PHASE2
Evaluation of Reduced-volume PEG Bowel Preparation Administered the Same Day of Colonoscopy
NCT01533090
COMPLETED
NA
Efficacy and Safety of Polyethylene Glycol Compared With Sodium Picosulphate for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy
NCT01093274
UNKNOWN
NA
Comparing Single-dose Low-volume PEG Plus Bisacodyl vs. Split-dose PEG for Bowel Preparation in Morning Colonoscopy
NCT03248726
COMPLETED
NA
Improved Bowel Preparation Method for Colonoscopy Based on Different Risk Stratification
NCT04582942
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Oral Lactulose Versus Polyethylene Glycol for Bowel Preparation
NCT04794049
UNKNOWN
NA
Same-day, Reduced Volume Bowel Preparation
NCT01044394
WITHDRAWN
PHASE2
Single Dose Versus Split Dose Polyethylene Glycol-based Colonic Lavage for Colonoscopy
NCT01610856
COMPLETED
NA
PEG Versus PEG+Bisacodyl Versus Sennosides for Colon Cleansing Before Colonoscopy
NCT01531140
COMPLETED
PHASE4
Low Volume PEG With Low Residue Test Meals Versus High Volume Split-dose PEG Bowel Preparation
NCT01568814
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Effect of Lactulose and/or Polyethylene Glycol Solution for Bowel Preparation for Colonscopy Procedures
NCT05076799
COMPLETED
PHASE3
A Prospective, Randomized, Single-blinded (Evaluator), Parallel, Multi-center, Phase 3 Trial in Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy
NCT03544944
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Effect and Safety of Polyethylene Glycol Combined With Linaclotide on Colon Cleansing for Patients With Chronic Constipation
NCT05137145
UNKNOWN
NA
Application of Linaclotide Capsule in Bowel Preparation for Patients at High Risk of Inadequate Bowel Preparation
NCT05379491
COMPLETED
NA
A Safety and Efficacy Comparison of BLI4700 Bowel Prep Versus an FDA-approved Comparator in Adults Prior to Colonoscopy
NCT03404401
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Efficacy of Prokinetics With Split Dose of PEG in Morning Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation
NCT01513096
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Polyethylene Glycol Versus Sodium Phosphate for Colon Preparation After Failure of First Preparation for Colonoscopy
NCT00558376
TERMINATED
NA
Efficacy and Safety Study of Sodium Phosphate Tablets vs PEG for Bowel Cleansing
NCT01840553
COMPLETED
PHASE3
Efficacy and Safety of Prepopik® in Children for Overall Colon Cleansing in Preparation for Colonoscopy
NCT01928862
COMPLETED
PHASE1/PHASE2
Comparison Between Asymmetric And Standard Split-Dose Regimen For Bowel Preparation
NCT03146052
COMPLETED
NA