<clinical_study>
  <!-- This xml conforms to an XML Schema at:
    https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/html/images/info/public.xsd -->
  <required_header>
    <download_date>ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023</download_date>
    <link_text>Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.</link_text>
    <url>https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976805</url>
  </required_header>
  <id_info>
    <org_study_id>HSREB108472</org_study_id>
    <nct_id>NCT02976805</nct_id>
  </id_info>
  <brief_title>Multi-centre Failed Bowel Prep RCT</brief_title>
  <acronym>B-CLEANR</acronym>
  <official_title>A Multi-centre Endoscopist Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial to Compare Two Bowel Preparations After a Colonoscopy With Inadequate Bowel Preparation</official_title>
  <sponsors>
    <lead_sponsor>
      <agency>Lawson Health Research Institute</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </lead_sponsor>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>Pendopharm</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>University of Alberta</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>Université de Montréal</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>McGill University</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
    <collaborator>
      <agency>University of Western Ontario, Canada</agency>
      <agency_class>Other</agency_class>
    </collaborator>
  </sponsors>
  <source>Lawson Health Research Institute</source>
  <oversight_info>
    <has_dmc>No</has_dmc>
    <is_fda_regulated_drug>No</is_fda_regulated_drug>
    <is_fda_regulated_device>No</is_fda_regulated_device>
  </oversight_info>
  <brief_summary>
    <textblock>
      This is a multi-centre randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of two different&#xD;
      bowel preparation regimens for patients who have already failed a bowel preparation for&#xD;
      colonoscopy.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </brief_summary>
  <detailed_description>
    <textblock>
      PURPOSE&#xD;
&#xD;
      The purpose of this multi-centre randomized clinical trial is to compare two bowel&#xD;
      preparation regimens for patients who fail to cleanse their colon during their index&#xD;
      colonoscopy. Although many clinical trials already exist examining the optimal bowel&#xD;
      preparation for colonoscopy in general, surprisingly none address patients who failed bowel&#xD;
      preparation in the past. Failure to achieve bowel preparation is a result of complex factors,&#xD;
      including underlying colonic dysmotility, co-morbidities, and concurrent medication usage and&#xD;
      is rarely the result of patient non-compliance.(1) Given the frequency of inadequate bowel&#xD;
      preparation, its negative impact on colonoscopy quality, the increased risk for an adverse&#xD;
      event, and the need to repeat the procedure, an important public health need exists to&#xD;
      address this question urgently.(1) This study will use many of the same methodology and&#xD;
      investigators as an ongoing Canadian multicenter study titled, &quot;The Bowel CLEAnsing: a&#xD;
      National initiative ( B-CLEAN) &quot; but on a smaller scale to answer this question.&#xD;
&#xD;
      BACKGROUND&#xD;
&#xD;
      Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for high quality colonoscopy and is needed to&#xD;
      maximize visualization of the colonic mucosa.(1-4) Unfortunately, inadequate bowel&#xD;
      preparation is common and reported to occur in 4% to 17% of cases.(5-12) Procedures with poor&#xD;
      preparation are more likely to be incomplete, have an adverse event, and are less likely to&#xD;
      detect polyps.(1, 9, 13) Repeat colonoscopies within one year have shown a 36% miss rate for&#xD;
      advanced adenomas in these patients.(12) Recognizing the importance of high quality&#xD;
      colonoscopy, Cancer Care Ontario and other provincial health authorities now track adequacy&#xD;
      rates for bowel preparation.&#xD;
&#xD;
      In cases of poor bowel preparation, the colonoscopy must be repeated, exposing patients to&#xD;
      another invasive procedure and adding additional costs to the healthcare system. Although&#xD;
      health economic data regarding colonoscopy utilization in Canada is sparse, an illustrative&#xD;
      example from the United States is possible. Assuming 14.2 million screening colonoscopies are&#xD;
      performed annually in the United States (14) of which 5% have inadequate bowel preparation&#xD;
      (6, 8), a total of 710,000 colonoscopies have to be repeated at a cost of $763 million&#xD;
      dollars, based on a per case cost of $1,075.(15) This is likely an underestimation of the&#xD;
      true cost due to exclusion of non-screening colonoscopies in the calculation and the use of a&#xD;
      low colonoscopy cost estimate based on the Nationwide Colonoscopy Program for the&#xD;
      Uninsured.(15)&#xD;
&#xD;
      There are numerous definitions of inadequate bowel preparation and the term's lack of&#xD;
      specificity contributes to the varied incidence of inadequate bowel preparation reported in&#xD;
      the literature. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is a user friendly validated&#xD;
      measure that is based on three colonic segment scores (right, transverse, left, each scored&#xD;
      between 0 - 3) and is summed for a total score between 0 - 9.(16, 17)(Appendix A) Adequacy&#xD;
      was recently formally defined in a large study involving 2,516 patients undergoing&#xD;
      colonoscopies at 36 centres as a total score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2.(18)&#xD;
&#xD;
      The optimal bowel preparation to use for repeat colonoscopy in patients who failed the&#xD;
      initial preparation is unknown. However, a combination of a stimulant, such as bisacodyl, and&#xD;
      a larger volume of an electrolyte and fluid balanced osmotic laxative, such as PEG, is often&#xD;
      used. In a recent case series, Ibanez et al.(19) identified 83 patients with inadequate bowel&#xD;
      preparation at their index colonoscopy. 51 patients agreed to a repeat colonoscopy using an&#xD;
      'intensive' regimen consisting of a low fibre diet, bisacodyl, and 3L split dose polyethylene&#xD;
      glycol (PEG). Using this regimen, 90% had adequate bowel preparation at the second&#xD;
      colonoscopy. However, the bowel preparation at the index colonoscopy was not given in a split&#xD;
      dose manner in the majority of patients, which is now the standard of practice due to&#xD;
      superior cleansing, and the lack of a control group makes an accurate assessment of efficacy&#xD;
      impossible.(1) In another study, patients with inadequate bowel preparation after split dose&#xD;
      PEG (4L) were offered a repeat colonoscopy the same day after ingestion of another 2L of PEG&#xD;
      or a colonoscopy 1 week later using a low fibre diet, bisacodyl, and 4L split dose PEG.(20)&#xD;
      There was no difference in adequacy of bowel preparation although 20% of cases were still&#xD;
      inadequate and the lack of randomization and blinding threaten the validity of these results.&#xD;
&#xD;
      To date, no consensus exists regarding the optimal bowel preparation regimen to use in&#xD;
      patients with inadequate cleansing due to the absence of clinical trials. Given 4% to 17% of&#xD;
      colonoscopies have inadequate bowel preparation, there is a significant public health need to&#xD;
      address this issue.(5-12, 21-23) A highly efficacious yet tolerable bowel preparation regimen&#xD;
      is needed for these patients to ensure adequate cleansing for their next procedure. The&#xD;
      objective of this multi-centre randomized clinical trial will be to compare the efficacy of&#xD;
      two regimens in achieving adequate bowel preparation after failing to cleanse at the index&#xD;
      colonoscopy.&#xD;
&#xD;
      PROJECT DESCRIPTION&#xD;
&#xD;
      3.1 Study Design, Randomization, and Blinding This multi-centre randomized clinical trial&#xD;
      will compare two bowel preparation regimens for patients who have already failed bowel&#xD;
      preparation at their index colonoscopy, defined as inadequate visualization to detect lesions&#xD;
      &gt; 5 mm and requiring a shortened colonoscopy interval as a result. This clinical definition&#xD;
      of failed bowel preparation was chosen instead of the BBPS since the latter may not be&#xD;
      available from the index colonoscopy depending on the endoscopist. However, where possible,&#xD;
      the BBPS at the index colonoscopy will be recorded. A total of four centres from the original&#xD;
      B-CLEAN study group have agreed to participate (Appendix E).&#xD;
&#xD;
      Subjects will be randomized to one of 2 arms (see '3.2 Selection of Bowel Preparation&#xD;
      Regimens' for details). Randomization will be performed centrally using Research Electronic&#xD;
      Data Capture (REDCap) in a 1:1 allocation in blocks of varying sizes stratified by site. In&#xD;
      addition, data entry will be performed online through REDCap.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Blinding of the endoscopist will be strictly enforced. Endoscopists are required to remain&#xD;
      blinded to the subject's bowel preparation until after completing the bowel cleanliness&#xD;
      section of the CRF. Subjects will be asked to not discuss the bowel preparation with any&#xD;
      endoscopy unit staff except for research personnel until the colonoscopy preparation rating&#xD;
      has been completed by the endoscopist. Unfortunately, blinding of the patient (ie. double&#xD;
      blinding) is impossible due to the volume differences between the two bowel preparation&#xD;
      regimens.&#xD;
&#xD;
      3.2 Selection of Bowel Preparation Regimens Regimen A: 4L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl Regimen&#xD;
      B: 6L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl&#xD;
&#xD;
      There is no standard bowel preparation utilized after a colonoscopy with failed bowel&#xD;
      preparation. Regimen A was adapted from Ibanez et al.(19) who used a regimen consisting of 3L&#xD;
      polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 10 mg bisacodyl with reasonable effectiveness. In our study, 4L&#xD;
      PEG is used instead of 3L to avoid reducing the amount of PEG consumed by those who were&#xD;
      originally prepped with 4L PegLyte at their index colonoscopy. 15 mg bisacodyl was used&#xD;
      instead of 10 mg for consistency with dosing used in BiPegLyte. This regimen is modestly more&#xD;
      intensive than standard bowel preparation due to an additional 2L PEG compared to BiPegLyte&#xD;
      and 15 mg bisacodyl compared to 4L PegLyte.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Regimen B was adapted from Kim et al.(20) as a more intensive yet tolerable regimen. In this&#xD;
      regimen, 6L of PEG is combined with 15 mg of bisacodyl.&#xD;
&#xD;
      3.3 Bowel Preparation &amp; Colonoscopy Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 allocation to either&#xD;
      regimen A or B. Regardless of randomization, subjects will be instructed to follow a low&#xD;
      fibre diet for 2 days followed by clear fluid diet for 24 hours prior to the scheduled&#xD;
      colonoscopy. The time and amount of PEG the subjects will consume will depend on&#xD;
      randomization.(APPENDIX B) To optimize patient adherence, all participants will receive a&#xD;
      handout with their specific bowel preparation instructions based on their randomization.&#xD;
&#xD;
      All colonoscopies will be performed within 12 weeks of randomization but not within 2 weeks&#xD;
      of index colonoscopy (ie. washout period from the index bowel preparation). Procedures will&#xD;
      be performed according to local standard operating procedures. All participating endoscopists&#xD;
      will complete standardized training and calibration in the use of the Boston Bowel&#xD;
      Preparation Scale prior to the start of the study at&#xD;
      http://www.bmc.org/gastroenterology/research.htm. A record of training will be sent to the&#xD;
      coordinating centre.&#xD;
&#xD;
      For subjects who do not present for their colonoscopy after randomization (ie. forgot&#xD;
      appointment), they may remain in the study and be prepped with the same regimen again as long&#xD;
      as their next colonoscopy is not scheduled within the next two weeks. For subjects who&#xD;
      decline ongoing study participation, they can withdraw and follow up with their physician.&#xD;
&#xD;
      3.4 Baseline Data Collection&#xD;
&#xD;
        1. Age&#xD;
&#xD;
        2. Gender&#xD;
&#xD;
        3. Weight&#xD;
&#xD;
        4. Height&#xD;
&#xD;
        5. Primary Language&#xD;
&#xD;
        6. Highest level of education&#xD;
&#xD;
        7. Patient's ability to understand and follow the bowel preparation directives at home as&#xD;
           deemed by the research personnel (Y/N)&#xD;
&#xD;
        8. Charlson co-morbidity index score (24)&#xD;
&#xD;
      7. Irritable bowel syndrome according to ROME III criteria (25) 8. Functional constipation&#xD;
      according to ROME III criteria (25) 9. Neurologic disorders: Parkinson's disease, multiple&#xD;
      sclerosis, cerebral palsy, other 10. Previous abdominal/pelvic surgery 11. Established&#xD;
      diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. 12. Medication usage 13. Information regarding index&#xD;
      colonoscopy&#xD;
&#xD;
        1. Method of communication for index colonoscopy&#xD;
&#xD;
        2. Bowel preparation used&#xD;
&#xD;
        3. Use of split dose bowel preparation (Y/N)&#xD;
&#xD;
        4. Did patient followed the diet as prescribed (Y/N)&#xD;
&#xD;
        5. Did patient take bowel preparation medication as prescribed (Y/N)&#xD;
&#xD;
        6. Subject willingness to repeat the index bowel preparation&#xD;
&#xD;
        7. Subject incontinence &amp; travel time with index bowel preparation 14. Indication for index&#xD;
           colonoscopy (screening, surveillance, diagnostic)&#xD;
&#xD;
      3.5 Statistical Considerations Sample size was calculated as follows. Assuming 70% adequacy&#xD;
      among those randomized to regimen A, 87.5% adequacy among those randomized to regimen B,&#xD;
      significance of 0.05, and power of 0.8, 85 patients are required in each group (total = 170).&#xD;
      An adequacy rate of 70% was selected based on the existing literature.(19, 20) Additional&#xD;
      factors considered in arriving at this figure include the lack of split dosing used at the&#xD;
      index colonoscopy (19), inadequate intake of PEG at the index colonoscopy (20), and the&#xD;
      performance of the second colonoscopy within a week of the first.(20) An adequacy rate of&#xD;
      87.5% was selected based on a 25% relative increase in adequacy to be considered clinically&#xD;
      significant. Based on a target sample size of 170 and a conservative 15% dropout, 196&#xD;
      subjects are required for the study.&#xD;
&#xD;
      Descriptive statistics will be reported as mean (SD), median (range), and proportions as&#xD;
      appropriate. Data will be analyzed as intention-to-treat and hypothesis testing performed&#xD;
      with t-test, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Pre-planned secondary&#xD;
      analyses will include per-protocol analysis, stratification by timing of colonoscopy (ie.&#xD;
      morning versus afternoon procedures), and stratification by initial bowel preparation used.&#xD;
    </textblock>
  </detailed_description>
  <overall_status>Completed</overall_status>
  <start_date type="Actual">February 13, 2017</start_date>
  <completion_date type="Actual">February 19, 2020</completion_date>
  <primary_completion_date type="Actual">February 19, 2020</primary_completion_date>
  <phase>Phase 3</phase>
  <study_type>Interventional</study_type>
  <has_expanded_access>No</has_expanded_access>
  <study_design_info>
    <allocation>Randomized</allocation>
    <intervention_model>Parallel Assignment</intervention_model>
    <primary_purpose>Treatment</primary_purpose>
    <masking>Single (Investigator)</masking>
  </study_design_info>
  <primary_outcome>
    <measure>Adequate bowel preparation</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
    <description>BBPS total score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2.</description>
  </primary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Mean BBPS total score</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Bowel preparation was adequate after washing to visualize lesions &gt; 5 mm of importance to the procedure and there is no need to shorten the interval of the next colonoscopy</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Validated patient tolerability questionnaire for bowel preparation score</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Bowel preparation related adverse event</measure>
    <time_frame>After colonoscopy and 14 days after colonoscopy</time_frame>
    <description>The following moderate and non-lasting symptoms related to bowel prep are expected and not considered adverse events:&#xD;
Nausea&#xD;
Vomiting&#xD;
Abdominal fullness&#xD;
Bloating&#xD;
Abdominal cramps and pain&#xD;
Diarrhea&#xD;
Anal irritation&#xD;
Otherwise, all AEs will be classified as follows:&#xD;
Severity:&#xD;
Mild&#xD;
Moderate&#xD;
Severe&#xD;
Causality:&#xD;
Unrelated&#xD;
Possible&#xD;
Probable&#xD;
Highly probable&#xD;
Outcome:&#xD;
Resolved without residual effects&#xD;
Resolved with residual effects&#xD;
Recovering/Resolving&#xD;
Not Recovered/Not Resolved&#xD;
Death&#xD;
Unknown&#xD;
A Serious Adverse Event (SAE) is defined as an event that&#xD;
Led to a death&#xD;
Led to a serious deterioration in the health of the subject that resulted in a life-threatening illness or injury, permanent impairment of a body structure or function, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, or required medical or surgical intervention to prevent permanent impairment of a body structure or function</description>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <secondary_outcome>
    <measure>Right sided BBPS sub-score</measure>
    <time_frame>Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </secondary_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Detection rate by histology (polyp, adenoma, advanced adenoma (&gt;1 cm, villous component, sessile serrated adenoma, or high grade dysplasia), and adenocarcinoma)</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Cecal intubation rate</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Subject product completion (% of total required intake)</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Subject willingness to repeat the preparation</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Subject incontinence &amp; travel time</measure>
    <time_frame>Once after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Polyp per colonoscopy</measure>
    <time_frame>Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Adenoma per colonoscopy</measure>
    <time_frame>Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <other_outcome>
    <measure>Fecal incontinence rate</measure>
    <time_frame>Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy</time_frame>
  </other_outcome>
  <number_of_arms>2</number_of_arms>
  <enrollment type="Actual">196</enrollment>
  <condition>Colonoscopy</condition>
  <condition>Bowel Preparation</condition>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Regimen A</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Experimental</arm_group_type>
    <description>4L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl</description>
  </arm_group>
  <arm_group>
    <arm_group_label>Regimen B</arm_group_label>
    <arm_group_type>Experimental</arm_group_type>
    <description>6L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl</description>
  </arm_group>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Drug</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>4L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl</intervention_name>
    <description>Randomized</description>
    <arm_group_label>Regimen A</arm_group_label>
    <other_name>Regimen A</other_name>
  </intervention>
  <intervention>
    <intervention_type>Drug</intervention_type>
    <intervention_name>6L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl</intervention_name>
    <description>Randomized</description>
    <arm_group_label>Regimen B</arm_group_label>
    <other_name>Regimen B</other_name>
  </intervention>
  <eligibility>
    <criteria>
      <textblock>
        Inclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          1. Anyone undergoing a repeat colonoscopy due to failed bowel preparation at index&#xD;
             colonoscopy. Failure is defined as preparation quality inadequate to detect lesions &gt;&#xD;
             5 mm after washing and requiring a shortened colonoscopy interval as a result.&#xD;
&#xD;
          2. Age &gt; 18 years&#xD;
&#xD;
          3. Outpatient colonoscopy&#xD;
&#xD;
          4. Indication for full colonoscopy&#xD;
&#xD;
        Exclusion Criteria:&#xD;
&#xD;
          1. Subject refusal&#xD;
&#xD;
          2. Able to comprehend the trial&#xD;
&#xD;
          3. Index colonoscopy performed as an inpatient&#xD;
&#xD;
          4. Pregnancy or breastfeeding&#xD;
&#xD;
          5. Allergies to the employed bowel preparations&#xD;
&#xD;
          6. Any colonic surgery&#xD;
&#xD;
          7. History of ischemic colitis&#xD;
&#xD;
          8. Congestive heart failure&#xD;
&#xD;
          9. Chronic renal failure&#xD;
&#xD;
         10. Cirrhosis&#xD;
&#xD;
         11. Severe electrolyte imbalance&#xD;
&#xD;
         12. Non-adherence to index bowel preparation defined as failure to follow diet&#xD;
             instructions and/or consume the entire volume of bowel preparation medication as&#xD;
             prescribed for any reason (ex. eating a normal diet on the day of colonoscopy, PEG&#xD;
             intolerance, etc…)&#xD;
&#xD;
         13. Use of bowel preparation in an off-label manner for the index colonoscopy.&#xD;
&#xD;
         14. Inability to follow verbal and written instructions in English or French.&#xD;
&#xD;
         15. Ileus, gastric outlet obstruction, gastrointestinal obstruction, bowel preforation&#xD;
&#xD;
         16. Toxic coitis or toxic megacolon&#xD;
&#xD;
         17. Acute surgical abdomen including appendicitis&#xD;
&#xD;
         18. Gastroenteritis and acute diverticulitis&#xD;
      </textblock>
    </criteria>
    <gender>All</gender>
    <minimum_age>18 Years</minimum_age>
    <maximum_age>N/A</maximum_age>
    <healthy_volunteers>No</healthy_volunteers>
  </eligibility>
  <overall_official>
    <last_name>Michael Sey, MD</last_name>
    <role>Principal Investigator</role>
    <affiliation>Western University</affiliation>
  </overall_official>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>University of Alberta Hospital</name>
      <address>
        <city>Edmonton</city>
        <state>Alberta</state>
        <country>Canada</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>London Health Sciences Centre</name>
      <address>
        <city>London</city>
        <state>Ontario</state>
        <country>Canada</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>CHUM</name>
      <address>
        <city>Montreal</city>
        <state>Quebec</state>
        <country>Canada</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
  </location>
  <location>
    <facility>
      <name>McGill University Health Centre</name>
      <address>
        <city>Montreal</city>
        <state>Quebec</state>
        <country>Canada</country>
      </address>
    </facility>
  </location>
  <location_countries>
    <country>Canada</country>
  </location_countries>
  <reference>
    <citation>ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF, Early DS, Muthusamy VR, Khashab MA, Chathadi KV, Fanelli RD, Chandrasekhara V, Lightdale JR, Fonkalsrud L, Shergill AK, Hwang JH, Decker GA, Jue TL, Sharaf R, Fisher DA, Evans JA, Foley K, Shaukat A, Eloubeidi MA, Faulx AL, Wang A, Acosta RD. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Apr;81(4):781-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.048. Epub 2015 Jan 14. No abstract available.</citation>
    <PMID>25595062</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Rex DK. Optimal bowel preparation--a practical guide for clinicians. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jul;11(7):419-25. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.35. Epub 2014 Apr 1.</citation>
    <PMID>24686267</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Polkowski M, Rembacken B, Saunders B, Benamouzig R, Holme O, Green S, Kuiper T, Marmo R, Omar M, Petruzziello L, Spada C, Zullo A, Dumonceau JM; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):142-50. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326186. Epub 2013 Jan 18.</citation>
    <PMID>23335011</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, Dominitz JA, Kaltenbach T, Martel M, Robertson DJ, Boland CR, Giardello FM, Lieberman DA, Levin TR, Rex DK. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Oct;80(4):543-562. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.002. No abstract available.</citation>
    <PMID>25220509</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Yee R, Manoharan S, Hall C, Hayashi A. Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: what are the predictors of an inadequate preparation? Am J Surg. 2015 May;209(5):787-92; discussion 792. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.12.018. Epub 2015 Feb 12.</citation>
    <PMID>25796095</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>MacPhail ME, Hardacker KA, Tiwari A, Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Intraprocedural cleansing work during colonoscopy and achievable rates of adequate preparation in an open-access endoscopy unit. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):525-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.002. Epub 2014 Jul 3.</citation>
    <PMID>24998464</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Dik VK, Moons LM, Huyuk M, van der Schaar P, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Ter Borg PC, Meijssen MA, Ouwendijk RJ, Le Fevre DM, Stouten M, van der Galien O, Hiemstra TJ, Monkelbaan JF, van Oijen MG, Siersema PD; Colonoscopy Quality Initiative. Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):665-72. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.066. Epub 2015 Jan 17.</citation>
    <PMID>25600879</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The outcome of a second preparation for colonoscopy after preparation failure in the first procedure. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):626-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.027.</citation>
    <PMID>19251002</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>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.</citation>
    <PMID>15758907</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Jun;96(6):1797-802. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x.</citation>
    <PMID>11419832</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hookey LC, Vanner SJ. Pico-salax plus two-day bisacodyl is superior to pico-salax alone or oral sodium phosphate for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Mar;104(3):703-9. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2008.167. Epub 2009 Feb 17.</citation>
    <PMID>19223885</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, Rosenbaum AJ, Wang T, Neugut AI. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051. Epub 2011 Apr 8.</citation>
    <PMID>21481857</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109(11):1714-23; quiz 1724. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.232. Epub 2014 Aug 19.</citation>
    <PMID>25135006</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, Nadel MR, Manninen DL, Given LS, Dong FB, Winges LD, McKenna MT. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1670-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.051.</citation>
    <PMID>15578503</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Nationwide Colonoscopy Program for the Uninsured [cited 2015 September 21]. Available from: http://www.colonoscopyassist.com/After_Colonoscopy.html.</citation>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>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.</citation>
    <PMID>19136102</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>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.</citation>
    <PMID>20883845</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031. Epub 2014 Mar 12.</citation>
    <PMID>24629422</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Ibanez M, Parra-Blanco A, Zaballa P, Jimenez A, Fernandez-Velazquez R, Fernandez-Sordo JO, Gonzalez-Bernardo O, Rodrigo L. Usefulness of an intensive bowel cleansing strategy for repeat colonoscopy after preparation failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011 Dec;54(12):1578-84. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31823434c8.</citation>
    <PMID>22067188</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Kim JW, Han JH, Boo SJ, Ko OB, Park SK, Park SH, Yang DH, Jung KW, Kim KJ, Ye BD, Myung SJ, Yang SK, Kim JH, Byeon JS. Rescue bowel preparation: same day 2 L polyethylene glycol addition, not superior to bisacodyl addition 7 days later. Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Sep;59(9):2215-21. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3125-3. Epub 2014 Apr 20.</citation>
    <PMID>24748228</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M, Pagano N, Spada C, Carrara S, Giordanino C, Rondonotti E, Curcio G, Dulbecco P, Fabbri C, Della Casa D, Maiero S, Simone A, Iacopini F, Feliciangeli G, Manes G, Rinaldi A, Zullo A, Rogai F, Repici A. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 May;10(5):501-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.12.037. Epub 2012 Jan 10.</citation>
    <PMID>22239959</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH. The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single centre study of 10,571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis. 2007 Oct;9(8):745-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01220.x. Epub 2007 Mar 7.</citation>
    <PMID>17477852</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Fayad NF, Kahi CJ, Abd El-Jawad KH, Shin AS, Shah S, Lane KA, Imperiale TF. Association between body mass index and quality of split bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Nov;11(11):1478-85. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.05.037. Epub 2013 Jun 28.</citation>
    <PMID>23811246</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.</citation>
    <PMID>3558716</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA, Mearin F, Spiller RC. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(5):1480-91. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.061. Erratum In: Gastroenterology. 2006 Aug;131(2):688.</citation>
    <PMID>16678561</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Pasha SF, Shergill A, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi KV, Early D, Evans JA, Fisher D, Fonkalsrud L, Hwang JH, Khashab MA, Lightdale JR, Muthusamy VR, Saltzman JR, Cash BD. The role of endoscopy in the patient with lower GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Jun;79(6):875-85. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.10.039. Epub 2014 Apr 2. No abstract available.</citation>
    <PMID>24703084</PMID>
  </reference>
  <reference>
    <citation>Rahimi RS, Singal AG, Cuthbert JA, Rockey DC. Lactulose vs polyethylene glycol 3350--electrolyte solution for treatment of overt hepatic encephalopathy: the HELP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Nov;174(11):1727-33. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4746.</citation>
    <PMID>25243839</PMID>
  </reference>
  <verification_date>January 2020</verification_date>
  <study_first_submitted>November 25, 2016</study_first_submitted>
  <study_first_submitted_qc>November 28, 2016</study_first_submitted_qc>
  <study_first_posted type="Estimate">November 29, 2016</study_first_posted>
  <last_update_submitted>February 20, 2020</last_update_submitted>
  <last_update_submitted_qc>February 20, 2020</last_update_submitted_qc>
  <last_update_posted type="Actual">February 21, 2020</last_update_posted>
  <responsible_party>
    <responsible_party_type>Sponsor</responsible_party_type>
  </responsible_party>
  <intervention_browse>
    <!-- CAUTION:  The following MeSH terms are assigned with an imperfect algorithm            -->
    <mesh_term>Bisacodyl</mesh_term>
  </intervention_browse>
  <patient_data>
    <sharing_ipd>No</sharing_ipd>
  </patient_data>
  <!-- Results have not yet been posted for this study                                          -->
</clinical_study>


download date: ClinicalTrials.gov processed this data on September 20, 2023
link text: Link to the current ClinicalTrials.gov record.
url: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02976805
org study id: HSREB108472
nct id: NCT02976805
lead sponsor: 
collaborator: 
collaborator: 
collaborator: 
collaborator: 
collaborator: 
collaborator: 
has dmc: No
is fda regulated drug: No
is fda regulated device: No
This is a multi-centre randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of two different
      bowel preparation regimens for patients who have already failed a bowel preparation for
      colonoscopy.
PURPOSE

      The purpose of this multi-centre randomized clinical trial is to compare two bowel
      preparation regimens for patients who fail to cleanse their colon during their index
      colonoscopy. Although many clinical trials already exist examining the optimal bowel
      preparation for colonoscopy in general, surprisingly none address patients who failed bowel
      preparation in the past. Failure to achieve bowel preparation is a result of complex factors,
      including underlying colonic dysmotility, co-morbidities, and concurrent medication usage and
      is rarely the result of patient non-compliance.(1) Given the frequency of inadequate bowel
      preparation, its negative impact on colonoscopy quality, the increased risk for an adverse
      event, and the need to repeat the procedure, an important public health need exists to
      address this question urgently.(1) This study will use many of the same methodology and
      investigators as an ongoing Canadian multicenter study titled, "The Bowel CLEAnsing: a
      National initiative ( B-CLEAN) " but on a smaller scale to answer this question.

      BACKGROUND

      Adequate bowel preparation is a prerequisite for high quality colonoscopy and is needed to
      maximize visualization of the colonic mucosa.(1-4) Unfortunately, inadequate bowel
      preparation is common and reported to occur in 4% to 17% of cases.(5-12) Procedures with poor
      preparation are more likely to be incomplete, have an adverse event, and are less likely to
      detect polyps.(1, 9, 13) Repeat colonoscopies within one year have shown a 36% miss rate for
      advanced adenomas in these patients.(12) Recognizing the importance of high quality
      colonoscopy, Cancer Care Ontario and other provincial health authorities now track adequacy
      rates for bowel preparation.

      In cases of poor bowel preparation, the colonoscopy must be repeated, exposing patients to
      another invasive procedure and adding additional costs to the healthcare system. Although
      health economic data regarding colonoscopy utilization in Canada is sparse, an illustrative
      example from the United States is possible. Assuming 14.2 million screening colonoscopies are
      performed annually in the United States (14) of which 5% have inadequate bowel preparation
      (6, 8), a total of 710,000 colonoscopies have to be repeated at a cost of $763 million
      dollars, based on a per case cost of $1,075.(15) This is likely an underestimation of the
      true cost due to exclusion of non-screening colonoscopies in the calculation and the use of a
      low colonoscopy cost estimate based on the Nationwide Colonoscopy Program for the
      Uninsured.(15)

      There are numerous definitions of inadequate bowel preparation and the term's lack of
      specificity contributes to the varied incidence of inadequate bowel preparation reported in
      the literature. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is a user friendly validated
      measure that is based on three colonic segment scores (right, transverse, left, each scored
      between 0 - 3) and is summed for a total score between 0 - 9.(16, 17)(Appendix A) Adequacy
      was recently formally defined in a large study involving 2,516 patients undergoing
      colonoscopies at 36 centres as a total score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2.(18)

      The optimal bowel preparation to use for repeat colonoscopy in patients who failed the
      initial preparation is unknown. However, a combination of a stimulant, such as bisacodyl, and
      a larger volume of an electrolyte and fluid balanced osmotic laxative, such as PEG, is often
      used. In a recent case series, Ibanez et al.(19) identified 83 patients with inadequate bowel
      preparation at their index colonoscopy. 51 patients agreed to a repeat colonoscopy using an
      'intensive' regimen consisting of a low fibre diet, bisacodyl, and 3L split dose polyethylene
      glycol (PEG). Using this regimen, 90% had adequate bowel preparation at the second
      colonoscopy. However, the bowel preparation at the index colonoscopy was not given in a split
      dose manner in the majority of patients, which is now the standard of practice due to
      superior cleansing, and the lack of a control group makes an accurate assessment of efficacy
      impossible.(1) In another study, patients with inadequate bowel preparation after split dose
      PEG (4L) were offered a repeat colonoscopy the same day after ingestion of another 2L of PEG
      or a colonoscopy 1 week later using a low fibre diet, bisacodyl, and 4L split dose PEG.(20)
      There was no difference in adequacy of bowel preparation although 20% of cases were still
      inadequate and the lack of randomization and blinding threaten the validity of these results.

      To date, no consensus exists regarding the optimal bowel preparation regimen to use in
      patients with inadequate cleansing due to the absence of clinical trials. Given 4% to 17% of
      colonoscopies have inadequate bowel preparation, there is a significant public health need to
      address this issue.(5-12, 21-23) A highly efficacious yet tolerable bowel preparation regimen
      is needed for these patients to ensure adequate cleansing for their next procedure. The
      objective of this multi-centre randomized clinical trial will be to compare the efficacy of
      two regimens in achieving adequate bowel preparation after failing to cleanse at the index
      colonoscopy.

      PROJECT DESCRIPTION

      3.1 Study Design, Randomization, and Blinding This multi-centre randomized clinical trial
      will compare two bowel preparation regimens for patients who have already failed bowel
      preparation at their index colonoscopy, defined as inadequate visualization to detect lesions
      > 5 mm and requiring a shortened colonoscopy interval as a result. This clinical definition
      of failed bowel preparation was chosen instead of the BBPS since the latter may not be
      available from the index colonoscopy depending on the endoscopist. However, where possible,
      the BBPS at the index colonoscopy will be recorded. A total of four centres from the original
      B-CLEAN study group have agreed to participate (Appendix E).

      Subjects will be randomized to one of 2 arms (see '3.2 Selection of Bowel Preparation
      Regimens' for details). Randomization will be performed centrally using Research Electronic
      Data Capture (REDCap) in a 1:1 allocation in blocks of varying sizes stratified by site. In
      addition, data entry will be performed online through REDCap.

      Blinding of the endoscopist will be strictly enforced. Endoscopists are required to remain
      blinded to the subject's bowel preparation until after completing the bowel cleanliness
      section of the CRF. Subjects will be asked to not discuss the bowel preparation with any
      endoscopy unit staff except for research personnel until the colonoscopy preparation rating
      has been completed by the endoscopist. Unfortunately, blinding of the patient (ie. double
      blinding) is impossible due to the volume differences between the two bowel preparation
      regimens.

      3.2 Selection of Bowel Preparation Regimens Regimen A: 4L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl Regimen
      B: 6L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl

      There is no standard bowel preparation utilized after a colonoscopy with failed bowel
      preparation. Regimen A was adapted from Ibanez et al.(19) who used a regimen consisting of 3L
      polyethylene glycol (PEG) and 10 mg bisacodyl with reasonable effectiveness. In our study, 4L
      PEG is used instead of 3L to avoid reducing the amount of PEG consumed by those who were
      originally prepped with 4L PegLyte at their index colonoscopy. 15 mg bisacodyl was used
      instead of 10 mg for consistency with dosing used in BiPegLyte. This regimen is modestly more
      intensive than standard bowel preparation due to an additional 2L PEG compared to BiPegLyte
      and 15 mg bisacodyl compared to 4L PegLyte.

      Regimen B was adapted from Kim et al.(20) as a more intensive yet tolerable regimen. In this
      regimen, 6L of PEG is combined with 15 mg of bisacodyl.

      3.3 Bowel Preparation & Colonoscopy Subjects will be randomized in a 1:1 allocation to either
      regimen A or B. Regardless of randomization, subjects will be instructed to follow a low
      fibre diet for 2 days followed by clear fluid diet for 24 hours prior to the scheduled
      colonoscopy. The time and amount of PEG the subjects will consume will depend on
      randomization.(APPENDIX B) To optimize patient adherence, all participants will receive a
      handout with their specific bowel preparation instructions based on their randomization.

      All colonoscopies will be performed within 12 weeks of randomization but not within 2 weeks
      of index colonoscopy (ie. washout period from the index bowel preparation). Procedures will
      be performed according to local standard operating procedures. All participating endoscopists
      will complete standardized training and calibration in the use of the Boston Bowel
      Preparation Scale prior to the start of the study at
      http://www.bmc.org/gastroenterology/research.htm. A record of training will be sent to the
      coordinating centre.

      For subjects who do not present for their colonoscopy after randomization (ie. forgot
      appointment), they may remain in the study and be prepped with the same regimen again as long
      as their next colonoscopy is not scheduled within the next two weeks. For subjects who
      decline ongoing study participation, they can withdraw and follow up with their physician.

      3.4 Baseline Data Collection

        1. Age

        2. Gender

        3. Weight

        4. Height

        5. Primary Language

        6. Highest level of education

        7. Patient's ability to understand and follow the bowel preparation directives at home as
           deemed by the research personnel (Y/N)

        8. Charlson co-morbidity index score (24)

      7. Irritable bowel syndrome according to ROME III criteria (25) 8. Functional constipation
      according to ROME III criteria (25) 9. Neurologic disorders: Parkinson's disease, multiple
      sclerosis, cerebral palsy, other 10. Previous abdominal/pelvic surgery 11. Established
      diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease. 12. Medication usage 13. Information regarding index
      colonoscopy

        1. Method of communication for index colonoscopy

        2. Bowel preparation used

        3. Use of split dose bowel preparation (Y/N)

        4. Did patient followed the diet as prescribed (Y/N)

        5. Did patient take bowel preparation medication as prescribed (Y/N)

        6. Subject willingness to repeat the index bowel preparation

        7. Subject incontinence & travel time with index bowel preparation 14. Indication for index
           colonoscopy (screening, surveillance, diagnostic)

      3.5 Statistical Considerations Sample size was calculated as follows. Assuming 70% adequacy
      among those randomized to regimen A, 87.5% adequacy among those randomized to regimen B,
      significance of 0.05, and power of 0.8, 85 patients are required in each group (total = 170).
      An adequacy rate of 70% was selected based on the existing literature.(19, 20) Additional
      factors considered in arriving at this figure include the lack of split dosing used at the
      index colonoscopy (19), inadequate intake of PEG at the index colonoscopy (20), and the
      performance of the second colonoscopy within a week of the first.(20) An adequacy rate of
      87.5% was selected based on a 25% relative increase in adequacy to be considered clinically
      significant. Based on a target sample size of 170 and a conservative 15% dropout, 196
      subjects are required for the study.

      Descriptive statistics will be reported as mean (SD), median (range), and proportions as
      appropriate. Data will be analyzed as intention-to-treat and hypothesis testing performed
      with t-test, chi-square, and Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Pre-planned secondary
      analyses will include per-protocol analysis, stratification by timing of colonoscopy (ie.
      morning versus afternoon procedures), and stratification by initial bowel preparation used.
allocation: Randomized
intervention model: Parallel Assignment
primary purpose: Treatment
masking: Single (Investigator)
measure: Adequate bowel preparation
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
description: BBPS total score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2.
measure: Mean BBPS total score
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Bowel preparation was adequate after washing to visualize lesions > 5 mm of importance to the procedure and there is no need to shorten the interval of the next colonoscopy
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Validated patient tolerability questionnaire for bowel preparation score
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Bowel preparation related adverse event
time frame: After colonoscopy and 14 days after colonoscopy
description: The following moderate and non-lasting symptoms related to bowel prep are expected and not considered adverse events:
Nausea
Vomiting
Abdominal fullness
Bloating
Abdominal cramps and pain
Diarrhea
Anal irritation
Otherwise, all AEs will be classified as follows:
Severity:
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Causality:
Unrelated
Possible
Probable
Highly probable
Outcome:
Resolved without residual effects
Resolved with residual effects
Recovering/Resolving
Not Recovered/Not Resolved
Death
Unknown
A Serious Adverse Event (SAE) is defined as an event that
Led to a death
Led to a serious deterioration in the health of the subject that resulted in a life-threatening illness or injury, permanent impairment of a body structure or function, hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization, or required medical or surgical intervention to prevent permanent impairment of a body structure or function
measure: Right sided BBPS sub-score
time frame: Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy
measure: Detection rate by histology (polyp, adenoma, advanced adenoma (>1 cm, villous component, sessile serrated adenoma, or high grade dysplasia), and adenocarcinoma)
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Cecal intubation rate
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Subject product completion (% of total required intake)
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Subject willingness to repeat the preparation
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Subject incontinence & travel time
time frame: Once after colonoscopy
measure: Polyp per colonoscopy
time frame: Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy
measure: Adenoma per colonoscopy
time frame: Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy
measure: Fecal incontinence rate
time frame: Up to 4 weeks after colonoscopy
arm group label: Regimen A
arm group type: Experimental
description: 4L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl
arm group label: Regimen B
arm group type: Experimental
description: 6L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl
intervention type: Drug
intervention name: 4L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl
description: Randomized
arm group label: Regimen A
other name: Regimen A
intervention type: Drug
intervention name: 6L PegLyte + 15 mg bisacodyl
description: Randomized
arm group label: Regimen B
other name: Regimen B
criteria: 
gender: All
minimum age: 18 Years
maximum age: N/A
healthy volunteers: No
last name: Michael Sey, MD
role: Principal Investigator
affiliation: Western University
facility: 
facility: 
facility: 
facility: 
country: Canada
citation: ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF, Early DS, Muthusamy VR, Khashab MA, Chathadi KV, Fanelli RD, Chandrasekhara V, Lightdale JR, Fonkalsrud L, Shergill AK, Hwang JH, Decker GA, Jue TL, Sharaf R, Fisher DA, Evans JA, Foley K, Shaukat A, Eloubeidi MA, Faulx AL, Wang A, Acosta RD. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Apr;81(4):781-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.048. Epub 2015 Jan 14. No abstract available.
PMID: 25595062
citation: Rex DK. Optimal bowel preparation--a practical guide for clinicians. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jul;11(7):419-25. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.35. Epub 2014 Apr 1.
PMID: 24686267
citation: Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Polkowski M, Rembacken B, Saunders B, Benamouzig R, Holme O, Green S, Kuiper T, Marmo R, Omar M, Petruzziello L, Spada C, Zullo A, Dumonceau JM; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):142-50. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1326186. Epub 2013 Jan 18.
PMID: 23335011
citation: Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, Dominitz JA, Kaltenbach T, Martel M, Robertson DJ, Boland CR, Giardello FM, Lieberman DA, Levin TR, Rex DK. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Oct;80(4):543-562. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.002. No abstract available.
PMID: 25220509
citation: Yee R, Manoharan S, Hall C, Hayashi A. Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: what are the predictors of an inadequate preparation? Am J Surg. 2015 May;209(5):787-92; discussion 792. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.12.018. Epub 2015 Feb 12.
PMID: 25796095
citation: MacPhail ME, Hardacker KA, Tiwari A, Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Intraprocedural cleansing work during colonoscopy and achievable rates of adequate preparation in an open-access endoscopy unit. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):525-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.002. Epub 2014 Jul 3.
PMID: 24998464
citation: Dik VK, Moons LM, Huyuk M, van der Schaar P, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Ter Borg PC, Meijssen MA, Ouwendijk RJ, Le Fevre DM, Stouten M, van der Galien O, Hiemstra TJ, Monkelbaan JF, van Oijen MG, Siersema PD; Colonoscopy Quality Initiative. Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):665-72. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.066. Epub 2015 Jan 17.
PMID: 25600879
citation: Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The outcome of a second preparation for colonoscopy after preparation failure in the first procedure. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):626-30. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.08.027.
PMID: 19251002
citation: 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.
PMID: 15758907
citation: Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Jun;96(6):1797-802. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x.
PMID: 11419832
citation: Hookey LC, Vanner SJ. Pico-salax plus two-day bisacodyl is superior to pico-salax alone or oral sodium phosphate for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Mar;104(3):703-9. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2008.167. Epub 2009 Feb 17.
PMID: 19223885
citation: Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, Rosenbaum AJ, Wang T, Neugut AI. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Jun;73(6):1207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051. Epub 2011 Apr 8.
PMID: 21481857
citation: Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109(11):1714-23; quiz 1724. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.232. Epub 2014 Aug 19.
PMID: 25135006
citation: Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, Nadel MR, Manninen DL, Given LS, Dong FB, Winges LD, McKenna MT. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1670-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2004.09.051.
PMID: 15578503
citation: Nationwide Colonoscopy Program for the Uninsured [cited 2015 September 21]. Available from: http://www.colonoscopyassist.com/After_Colonoscopy.html.
citation: 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.
PMID: 19136102
citation: 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.
PMID: 20883845
citation: Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
PMID: 24629422
citation: Ibanez M, Parra-Blanco A, Zaballa P, Jimenez A, Fernandez-Velazquez R, Fernandez-Sordo JO, Gonzalez-Bernardo O, Rodrigo L. Usefulness of an intensive bowel cleansing strategy for repeat colonoscopy after preparation failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011 Dec;54(12):1578-84. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31823434c8.
PMID: 22067188
citation: Kim JW, Han JH, Boo SJ, Ko OB, Park SK, Park SH, Yang DH, Jung KW, Kim KJ, Ye BD, Myung SJ, Yang SK, Kim JH, Byeon JS. Rescue bowel preparation: same day 2 L polyethylene glycol addition, not superior to bisacodyl addition 7 days later. Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Sep;59(9):2215-21. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3125-3. Epub 2014 Apr 20.
PMID: 24748228
citation: Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M, Pagano N, Spada C, Carrara S, Giordanino C, Rondonotti E, Curcio G, Dulbecco P, Fabbri C, Della Casa D, Maiero S, Simone A, Iacopini F, Feliciangeli G, Manes G, Rinaldi A, Zullo A, Rogai F, Repici A. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 May;10(5):501-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.12.037. Epub 2012 Jan 10.
PMID: 22239959
citation: Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH. The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single centre study of 10,571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis. 2007 Oct;9(8):745-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01220.x. Epub 2007 Mar 7.
PMID: 17477852
citation: Fayad NF, Kahi CJ, Abd El-Jawad KH, Shin AS, Shah S, Lane KA, Imperiale TF. Association between body mass index and quality of split bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Nov;11(11):1478-85. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.05.037. Epub 2013 Jun 28.
PMID: 23811246
citation: Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-83. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.
PMID: 3558716
citation: Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA, Mearin F, Spiller RC. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology. 2006 Apr;130(5):1480-91. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.061. Erratum In: Gastroenterology. 2006 Aug;131(2):688.
PMID: 16678561
citation: ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Pasha SF, Shergill A, Acosta RD, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi KV, Early D, Evans JA, Fisher D, Fonkalsrud L, Hwang JH, Khashab MA, Lightdale JR, Muthusamy VR, Saltzman JR, Cash BD. The role of endoscopy in the patient with lower GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Jun;79(6):875-85. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.10.039. Epub 2014 Apr 2. No abstract available.
PMID: 24703084
citation: Rahimi RS, Singal AG, Cuthbert JA, Rockey DC. Lactulose vs polyethylene glycol 3350--electrolyte solution for treatment of overt hepatic encephalopathy: the HELP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Nov;174(11):1727-33. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4746.
PMID: 25243839
responsible party type: Sponsor
mesh term: Bisacodyl
sharing ipd: No