Download PDF
Endoscopy 2019; 51(01): 73-84
DOI: 10.1055/a-0639-5070
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial

Stefan Schreiber
1   University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
,
Daniel C. Baumgart
2   Division of Gastroenterology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
,
Joost P. H. Drenth
3   Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
,
Rafał S. Filip
4   University of Rzeszów, Rzeszów, Poland
5   Institute of Rural Health, Lublin, Poland
,
Lucy B. Clayton
6   Clinical Development, Norgine Ltd, Harefield, United Kingdom
,
Kerry Hylands
6   Clinical Development, Norgine Ltd, Harefield, United Kingdom
,
Alessandro Repici
7   Department of Gastroenterology, Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
8   Department of Medical Bioscience, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
,
Cesare Hassan
9   Ospedale Nuovo Regina Margherita, Rome, Italy
,
on behalf of the DAYB Study Group › Author AffiliationsTRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group, phase 3 study 02273141 at clinicaltrials.gov
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 22 December 2017

accepted after revision 11 May 2018

Publication Date:
19 July 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are widely used for precolonoscopy bowel cleansing. This phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the novel 1 L PEG-based NER1006 vs. sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP + MC) in day-before dosing.

Methods Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomized (1 : 1) to receive NER1006 or SP + MC. Cleansing was assessed on the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) using central readers. Two primary end points were assessed: overall colon cleansing success and high-quality cleansing of the right colon. Intention-to-treat (modified full analysis set [mFAS]) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed.

Results Of 515 patients, efficacy was analyzed in 501 (NER1006, n = 250; SP + MC, n = 251) and 379 patients (NER1006, n = 172; SP + MC, n = 207) in the mFAS and PP analyses, respectively. Non-inferiority of NER1006 vs. SP + MC was established in the mFAS for both overall cleansing (62.0 % vs. 53.8 %; P = 0.04) and high-quality cleansing in the right colon (4.4 % vs. 1.2 %; P = 0.03). Superiority of NER1006 was demonstrated using HCS in the PP set for overall cleansing success (68.0 % vs. 57.5 %; P = 0.02) and right colon high-quality cleansing (5.2 % vs. 1.0 %; P = 0.02) and using BBPS in the mFAS for overall cleansing success (58.4 % vs. 45.8 %; P = 0.003) and right colon high-quality cleansing (4.0 % vs. 0.8 %; P = 0.02). Mean segmental scores for 4/5 segments were higher with NER1006 (P ≤ 0.04). Both treatments were well tolerated, with more mild adverse events for NER1006 (17.0 % vs. 10.0 %; P = 0.03).

Conclusions Colon cleansing with NER1006 vs. SP + MC was non-inferior (mFAS) and superior (PP), with acceptable safety.

European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT)

2014-002186-30

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group, phase 3 study 2014-002186-30 at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/

Table e1 – e3, Table e5, Fig. e5, Fig. e6 and Fig. e9

Refers to:

The paradox of the novel 1 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation: efficacy, not tolerability, is the great new!Endoscopy 2019; 51(01): 7-9
DOI: 10.1055/a-0725-8137

 

  • References

  • 1 Bechtold ML, Mir F, Puli SR. et al. Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualization. Ann Gastroenterol 2016; 29: 137-146
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M. Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014; 348: g2467
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Baxter NN, Warren JL, Barrett MJ. et al. Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality in a US cohort according to site of cancer and colonoscopist specialty. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 2664-2669
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Oh CH, Lee CK, Kim J-W. et al. Suboptimal bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 2294-2303
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR. et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696-1700
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1155-1162
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A. et al. Quantification of adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 396-405
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Belsey J, Crosta C, Epstein O. et al. Meta-analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy 1985–2010. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 35: 222-237
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142-150
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB. et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 543-562
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25: 373-384
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Ell C, Fischbach W, Bronisch H-J. et al. Randomized trial of low-volume PEG solution versus standard PEG + electrolytes for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 883-893
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Worthington J, Thyssen M, Chapman G. et al. A randomised controlled trial of a new 2 litre polyethylene glycol solution versus sodium picosulphate + magnesium citrate solution for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy. Curr Med Res Opin 2008; 24: 481-488
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Gweon T-G, Kim SW, Noh Y-S. et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of same-day dose of 2 different bowel cleanser for afternoon colonoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94: e628
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Pohl J, Halphen M, Kloess HR. et al. Impact of the quality of bowel cleansing on the efficacy of colonic cancer screening: a prospective, randomized, blinded study. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: e0126067
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Halphen M, Tayo B, Flanagan S. et al. Pharmacodynamic and clinical evaluation of low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel cleansing solutions (NER1006) using split-dosing in healthy and screening colonoscopy subjects. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: S189
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bisschops R, Manning J, Clayton L. et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1L NER1006 versus 2L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized Phase 3 trial. Endoscopy 2019;
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J. et al. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 87: 677-687.e3
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Schreiber S, Baumgart DC, Drenth JP. et al. Efficacy and safety of the novel 1L PEG and ascorbate bowel preparation NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate + magnesium citrate in day-before split-dosing administrations: results from the Phase 3 study DAYB. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: A157-A720
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Halphen M, Heresbach D, Gruss H-J. et al. Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 121-131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Rodríguez de Miguel C, Serradesanferm A, López-Cerón M. et al. Ascorbic acid PEG-2L is superior for early morning colonoscopies in colorectal cancer screening programs: a prospective non-randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 38: 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A. et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rex DK, Katz PO, Bertiger G. et al. Split-dose administration of a dual-action, low-volume bowel cleanser for colonoscopy: the SEE CLEAR I study. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 132-141
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M. et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98-105
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar