Efficacy and acceptability of bowel preparation strategies for inflammatory bowel disease colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently undergo colonoscopy, each requiring bowel preparation. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) 2019 guidelines recommended high- or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel prep for IBD patients; however other non-PEG-based preparations (sulphate and picosulphate-based) have now been studied in IBD. Methods: We searched CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, MEDLINE, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to December 2024. Primary outcome was bowel prep success; secondary outcomes included tolerability, acceptability, cecal intubation rates (CIR) and safety. Pooled estimates used risk ratio (RR) and GRADE to assess evidence certainty. Results: Ten RCTs (1479 IBD patients) were included. There was no difference in prep success (relative risk [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.09; I ² = 33%, 2 RCTs; moderate certainty evidence) between 2 L vs. 4 L PEG, but higher acceptability for 2 L (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.80; I ² = 18%, 2 RCTs; high certainty evidence). Low-volume non-PEG vs. PEG are probably similar for prep success (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-1.01; I ² = 6%,3 RCTs; moderate certainty evidence). The evidence on tolerability and acceptability was very uncertain. Subgroup analysis revealed comparable effectiveness of picosulphate-based (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78-1.01; I ² = 0%,1 RCT) and sulphate-based preps (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91-1.05; I ² = 28%, 2 RCTs) compared with low-volume PEG. Safety data were inconsistently reported. Conclusions: High-certainty evidence supports low-volume PEG as comparably successful to high-volume PEG, with higher acceptability. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates similar success between non-PEG and PEG-based preps. Both low-volume PEG and non-PEG-based preps are supported for use in IBD, broadening options beyond current ESGE guidelines.