Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 3 (5), 374-380

Augmentation With Pre-Emptive Macrogol-Based Osmotic Laxative Does Not Significantly Improve Standard Bowel Preparation in Unselected Patients: A Randomized Trial


Augmentation With Pre-Emptive Macrogol-Based Osmotic Laxative Does Not Significantly Improve Standard Bowel Preparation in Unselected Patients: A Randomized Trial

Dileep Mangira et al. JGH Open.


Background and aim: The addition of a laxative prior to a standard bowel preparation (BP) has shown variable results in efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the BP. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of a macrogol-augmented BP (M-BP) with standard BP for routine colonoscopy in unselected patients.

Methods: Adults undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomized to either M-BP (one sachet of macrogol-based osmotic laxative (MBOL) twice daily for eight doses prior to standard preparation) or BP (split-dose of polyethylene glycol and sodium picosulfate). Bowel cleansing was assessed using the Ottawa BP scale. Risk factors for poor BP, patient satisfaction, and tolerance were recorded.

Results: This randomized trial was stopped due to futility after 14 months; at that point, 92 subjects were randomized to the study arm and 102 to the control arm. M-BP had a success rate of 71.7% (95% CI: 58.5-82.7%), while the BP had a success rate of 67.7% (95% CI: 54.9-78.8%), with a Pearson χ 2 test P-value of 0.639, which exceeded the cut-off for futility (0.313). In subgroup analyses, there were statistically significant decreases in the rates of successful BP in patients taking regular opioids and regular laxatives. Both preparations were well tolerated, with no difference between groups (BP - 5.3% and M-BP - 6.6% P = 0.66).

Conclusion: The addition of MBOL prior to a standard BP in unselected subjects does not significantly improve bowel cleanliness at routine colonoscopy. The role of this laxative in patients at high risk of poor preparation warrants further investigation.

Keywords: augmentation; macrogol; osmotic laxative.


Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the study protocol. BP, bowel preparation; M‐BP, macrogol‐augmented bowel preparation; MBOL, macrogol‐based osmotic laxative.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient flow diagram: Study group (macrogol‐augmented bowel preparation [M‐BP]): Standard bowel preparation plus macrogol‐based osmotic laxative (MBOL); control group: Standard bowel preparation only. Excluded patients (n = 30); failed to attend (n = 5), canceled procedure (n = 3), incomplete data (n = 10), total noncompliance with scheduled bowel cleansing regimen (n = 4), rescheduled procedure (n = 4), and incomplete participant data‐sheets (n = 4). BP, bowel preparation; mITT, modified intention‐to‐treat analysis.

Similar articles

See all similar articles


    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer. 2015; 136: E359–86. - PubMed
    1. Singh R, Mangira D, Kawano H, Matsuda T. Screening colonoscopy in Australia. Dig. Endosc. 2015; 27 (Suppl. 1): 30–4. - PubMed
    1. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006; 101: 873–85. - PubMed
    1. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2003; 58: 76–9. - PubMed
    1. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2002; 97: 1696–700. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources