Effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus standard bowel preparations: A meta-analysis of randomized phase-3 clinical trials.
Adenoma
/ diagnosis
Aged
Ascorbic Acid
/ administration & dosage
Cathartics
/ administration & dosage
Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
Colonoscopy
/ methods
Drug Therapy, Combination
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Polyethylene Glycols
/ administration & dosage
Preoperative Care
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
ADR
Bowel preparation
Colonoscopy
NER1006
Safety
Journal
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver
ISSN: 1878-3562
Titre abrégé: Dig Liver Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 100958385
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
14
05
2020
revised:
19
05
2020
accepted:
26
05
2020
pubmed:
27
6
2020
medline:
15
7
2021
entrez:
27
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A 1 L PEG-based preparation for colonoscopy (NER1006) has been recently developed. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus traditional preparations. PubMed/Medline and Embase were systematically searched through January 2020 for phase-3 RCTs comparing NER1006 versus standard preparations. Three RCTs (1879 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed a higher cleansing success for NER1006 compared standard preparations (OR=1.28; 95% CI 1.00-1.62; p = 0.047, I When compared to traditional preparations, NER1006 showed a better overall cleansing of the colon as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon, with comparable ADR. A higher incidence of mild to moderate TEAEs was observed for NER1006, in the absence of serious adverse events.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A 1 L PEG-based preparation for colonoscopy (NER1006) has been recently developed.
AIMS
We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus traditional preparations.
METHODS
PubMed/Medline and Embase were systematically searched through January 2020 for phase-3 RCTs comparing NER1006 versus standard preparations.
RESULTS
Three RCTs (1879 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed a higher cleansing success for NER1006 compared standard preparations (OR=1.28; 95% CI 1.00-1.62; p = 0.047, I
CONCLUSIONS
When compared to traditional preparations, NER1006 showed a better overall cleansing of the colon as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon, with comparable ADR. A higher incidence of mild to moderate TEAEs was observed for NER1006, in the absence of serious adverse events.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32586765
pii: S1590-8658(20)30252-8
doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.05.046
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Cathartics
0
Polyethylene Glycols
3WJQ0SDW1A
Ascorbic Acid
PQ6CK8PD0R
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
833-839Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors have no proprietary, financial, professional or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service and/or company that could be construed as influencing the position presented in, or the review of this manuscript.