An intraprocedural bowel cleansing system for difficult-to-prepare patients-A multicenter prospective feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for colonoscopy. However, up to 20% of colonoscopies remain inadequately prepared. Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation often overlap with those of failed cecal intubation. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of an intraprocedural bowel cleansing system (BCS) in patients with a history of inadequate bowel preparation. METHODS: Patients (n = 44) with a history of inadequate bowel preparation in the past 2 years were included. After a limited preparation with 300 mL split-dose sodium picosulfate magnesium citrate, additional cleansing during colonoscopy was performed with the BCS. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rate, procedure times, usability, and safety. RESULTS: Median BBPS increased from 1-2-2 (IQR 1-2) to 3-3-3 (IQR) (p < 0.0001), with 31.8% and 88.6% of patients adequately prepared before and after using the BCS, respectively (p < 0.0001). Cecal intubation rate was 88.6%. Reasons for incomplete colonoscopy were looping (n = 2), technical failure (n = 1), relative stricture (n = 1), and residual feces (n = 1). In patients with complete colonoscopy, the adequate cleansing rate was 97.5%. Median total procedure time was 26 min, of which 5.3 min were spent on cleaning. General ease of use was scored with a median of 4 out of 5, representing "as good as conventional colonoscopy". No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate bowel cleaning can be achieved with an intraprocedural BCS in patients with a history of inadequate bowel preparation, which may reduce repeat colonoscopies and clinical admissions for bowel preparation. However, since these patients more frequently have complicated anatomy (surgical scarring, diverticulosis, etc.), adequate patient selection is advised to avoid incomplete procedures.

Efficacy of ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High-quality bowel preparation is paramount for the diagnostic accuracy and safety of colonoscopy; however, it is often difficult for patients to adhere to high-volume laxatives, which may contribute to poor bowel preparation. This review aims to assess the efficacy of bowel preparation fluids of 1 L or less (≤1 L). METHODS: We performed a systematic review including all relevant randomized controlled trials on ultra-low volume (≤1 L) bowel preparation fluids for colonoscopy published since 2015. Primary endpoint was the percentage of adequately prepared patients. Secondary endpoints included adenoma detection rate (ADR) and safety. RESULTS: Bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate (SPMC; 19 trials, n = 10,287), 1L-polyethylene glycol with ascorbate (PEGA; 10 trials, n = 1717), sodium phosphate (NaP; 2 trials, n = 621), and oral sulfate solution (OSS; 3 trials, n = 597) was adequate in 75.2%, 82.9%, 81.9%, and 92.1%, respectively, of patients; however, heterogeneity between studies was considerable (I2 range: 86-98%). Pooled ADRs were 31.1% with SPMC, 32.3% with 1L-PEGA, 30.4% with NaP, and 40.9% with OSS. Temporary electrolyte changes were seen with all ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluid solutions but without sustained effects in most patients. CONCLUSION: Ultra-low volume bowel preparation fluids do not always meet the 90% quality standard for adequate bowel preparation as defined by current guidelines. Nonetheless, they may be considered in patients intolerant for higher-volume laxatives and without risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation or dehydration-related complications.

Off-label prescriptions of drugs used for the treatment of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Off-label prescribing is encountered across various fields of medicine and creates alternative treatment options, but is associated with unknown safety risks. The use of off-label drugs for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) has not been characterised before. AIM: To assess the proportion and characteristics of off-label prescribing for IBD in tertiary care centres in the Netherlands. METHODS: A prospective database of IBD patients from all Dutch university hospitals was used to collect data on drug prescriptions for IBD and demographics. Drugs were classified as off-label if they were unlicensed for Crohn's disease and/or ulcerative colitis by the Medicines Evaluation Board. Uni- and multivariable analyses were used to identify patient-specific characteristics predictive of increased off-label use. RESULTS: For the induction and/or maintenance treatment of 4583 IBD patients, 12 651 historical and current drug records were available in the database. Of these, 2374 (19%) were considered off-label prescriptions. Out of 4583 IBD patients, 1477 (32%) were exposed to off-label drugs. Commonly prescribed off-label IBD drugs were mercaptopurine (18%), beclomethasone (12%), thioguanine (4%) and allopurinol (3%). Non-thiopurine/methotrexate off-label drugs were prescribed in 243 patients (6%), including biological agents or tofacitinib in 47 IBD patients (1%). Off-label prescriptions were more common in ulcerative colitis than Crohn's disease (37% vs 29%, P < 0.001). Smokers and patients that received ≥5 drug types during their disease course were more likely to be exposed to off-label drugs (smoking 33% vs 27% and multiple drug use 66% vs 22%, both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: About one-fifth of prescriptions for IBD were off-label and one-third of IBD patients, especially ulcerative colitis patients, were exposed to off-label drugs.