Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Sodium Picosulfate and Polyethylene Glycol in Chinese Population: A Meta-Analysis
Author(s)
fengji hu, MSc1, Cai Yuran, Msc1, Wang Dan, Mac1, TENGFEI LIN, MSc2, Nan Yang, PhD3.
1sichuan university, chengdu, China, 23lectuer, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
1sichuan university, chengdu, China, 23lectuer, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
OBJECTIVES: Previous studies comparing the efficacy and safety between sodium picosulfate (SPMC) and polyethylene glycol (PEG) for colonoscopy preparation in Chinese populations have reported inconsistent results. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of these two agents for colonoscopy in Chinese patients.
METHODS: We systematically searched CNKI, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy or safety of these bowel cleansing agents in Chinese populations. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), with secondary endpoints including polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Safety outcomes involved the incidence of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the analysis. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool indicated an unclear overall risk of bias for most studies. Regarding BBPS scores, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two agents in left colon cleanliness (MD 0.18; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.43). However, SPMC demonstrated superior efficacy over PEG in transverse colon cleanliness (MD 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.13) and right colon cleanliness (MD 0.10; 95% CI 0.04-0.15). PEG showed higher ADR compared to SPMC (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41-0.99), while there was no statistically significant difference in PDR between the agents (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.68-1.30). The overall incidence of AEs was significantly higher with PEG than with SPMC (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.27-2.56), indicating better safety for SPMC.
CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese populations, SPMC demonstrates better bowel preparation efficacy as measured by BBPS in the transverse and right colon, while PEG shows superior adenoma detection rates. SPMC exhibits a more favorable safety profile. However, due to limitations in study quality and sample size, additional real-world evidence is required to validate these findings.
METHODS: We systematically searched CNKI, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy or safety of these bowel cleansing agents in Chinese populations. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), with secondary endpoints including polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Safety outcomes involved the incidence of adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: Eight studies were included in the analysis. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool indicated an unclear overall risk of bias for most studies. Regarding BBPS scores, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two agents in left colon cleanliness (MD 0.18; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.43). However, SPMC demonstrated superior efficacy over PEG in transverse colon cleanliness (MD 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.13) and right colon cleanliness (MD 0.10; 95% CI 0.04-0.15). PEG showed higher ADR compared to SPMC (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41-0.99), while there was no statistically significant difference in PDR between the agents (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.68-1.30). The overall incidence of AEs was significantly higher with PEG than with SPMC (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.27-2.56), indicating better safety for SPMC.
CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese populations, SPMC demonstrates better bowel preparation efficacy as measured by BBPS in the transverse and right colon, while PEG shows superior adenoma detection rates. SPMC exhibits a more favorable safety profile. However, due to limitations in study quality and sample size, additional real-world evidence is required to validate these findings.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-09, ISPOR Real-World Evidence Summit 2025, Tokyo, Japan
Value in Health Regional, Volume 49S (September 2025)
Code
RWD44
Topic Subcategory
Distributed Data & Research Networks
Disease
SDC: Gastrointestinal Disorders