Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial
Authors:
- Stefan SchreiberSSStefan Schreiber
- Rafał S. FilipRFRafał S. Filip
- on behalf of the DAYB Study GroupOGon behalf of the DAYB Study Group
- 19 July 2018
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Georg Thieme Verlag KG in Endoscopy
- Vol. 51 (01) , 73-84
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)2014-002186-30TRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group, phase 3 study 2014-002186-30 at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- High-quality Bowel Preparation Is Required for Detection of Sessile Serrated PolypsClinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2016
- Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in MenGastroenterology, 2016
- Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualizationAnnals of Gastroenterology, 2016
- Suboptimal Bowel Preparation Significantly Impairs Colonoscopic Detection of Non-polypoid Colorectal NeoplasmsDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2015
- Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal CancerGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2014
- Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studiesBMJ, 2014
- Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) GuidelineEndoscopy, 2013
- Association Between Colonoscopy and Colorectal Cancer Mortality in a US Cohort According to Site of Cancer and Colonoscopist SpecialtyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2012
- Meta‐analysis: the relative efficacy of oral bowel preparations for colonoscopy 1985–2010Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2011
- Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopyAlimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2006