Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

CLINICAL TRIAL article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Gastrointestinal Cancers: Colorectal Cancer

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1620794

This article is part of the Research TopicNew Insights into the Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: From Physiopathology to Novel Therapeutic StrategiesView all 4 articles

Efficacy and Safety of Lubiprostone Combined with Polyethylene Glycol Electrolyte Powder for Bowel Preparation in Patients Classified by Risk Level: A Randomised Trial

Provisionally accepted
Jian  SongJian Song*Hong-Liang  LiHong-Liang LiXu-Fei  QiXu-Fei QiChang-Xi  ChenChang-Xi ChenYue-Mei  XuYue-Mei Xu
  • The Affiliated People’s Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of lubiprostone combined with polyethylene glycol (PEG) electrolyte powder for bowel preparation in patients classified by risk level. Methods: The following factors were considered to be associated with inadequate bowel preparation: constipation (meeting Rome IV criteria), BMI > 25 kg/m², history of inadequate bowel preparation, colorectal surgery, diabetes, stroke, or spinal cord injury, Parkinson's disease, and use of tricyclic antidepressants or anesthetics. A total of 424 patients scheduled for colonoscopy were included and categorized into high-risk and low-risk groups based on bowel preparation risk factors. These patients were then randomly assigned to block groups. The high-risk group was further subdivided into the H-PEG subgroup (PEG, 99 cases) and the H-PEG+L subgroup (PEG + lubiprostone, 105 cases), while the low-risk group was divided into the L-PEG subgroup (PEG, 103 cases) and the L-PEG+L subgroup (PEG + lubiprostone, 102 cases). The following parameters were assessed in each group: time to first bowel movement, total bowel movement count, adverse reactions during preparation, insertion and withdrawal durations, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores, rate of adequate bowel preparation, colorectal adenoma detection rates, and willingness to undergo repeated bowel preparation. Results: During bowel preparation, the H-PEG+L subgroup exhibited a shorter time to first bowel movement and a higher total bowel movement count than the H-PEG subgroup (p < 0.05). Similarly, the L-PEG+L subgroup demonstrated a reduced time to first bowel movement and increased total bowel movements compared to the L-PEG subgroup (p < 0.05). Within the high-risk group, the H-PEG+L subgroup had higher BBPS scores, a higher rate of adequate bowel preparation (p < 0.05), and greater willingness to undergo repeated bowel preparation (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found in the low-risk group. Additionally, no differences were observed between groups regarding adverse reactions, insertion duration, withdrawal duration, or adenoma detection rates. Conclusion: Among patients classified as high risk for inadequate bowel preparation, the combination of lubiprostone and PEG electrolyte powder significantly enhances BBPS scores and bowel cleanliness compared to PEG electrolyte powder alone, without increasing the incidence of adverse events, and is more

Keywords: Bowel preparation, Colonoscopy, effect, Lubiprostone, Polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder, Safety

Received: 30 Apr 2025; Accepted: 08 Sep 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Song, Li, Qi, Chen and Xu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Jian Song, The Affiliated People’s Hospital of Ningbo University, Ningbo, China

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.