Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trialTRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group, phase 3 study 02273141 at clinicaltrials.gov
submitted 22 December 2017
accepted after revision 11 May 2018
19 July 2018 (eFirst)
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)
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group, phase 3 study 2014-002186-30 at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 6 Clark BT, Laine L. High-quality bowel preparation is required for detection of sessile serrated polyps. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1155-1162
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 11 Belsey J, Epstein O, Heresbach D. Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25: 373-384
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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; DOI: 10.1055/a-0638-8125.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 23 Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A. et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197-204
- 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
- 25 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31-53
- 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
- 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