Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation (NER1006): proof of concept assessment versus standard 2 L polyethylene glycol with ascorbate - a randomized, parallel group, phase 2, colonoscopist-blinded trial

The Effectiveness of a Very Low-Volume Compared to High-Volume Laxative in Colon Capsule Endoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a promising modality for colonic investigations, but completion rates (CR) and adequate cleansing rates (ACR) must be improved to meet established standards for optical colonoscopy. Improvements should be made with patient acceptability in mind. We aimed to compare a very low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative to a conventional high-volume laxative. We carried out a single-center retrospective comparative cohort study including patients referred for CCE. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included in the final analysis, with eighty-three patients in each group. We found a CR and ACR of 77% and 67% in the high-volume group and 72% and 75% in the very low-volume group, respectively. In the high-volume group, 54% had complete transit and adequate cleansing, whereas this was the case for 63% in the very low-volume group. No statistically significant difference in CR, ACR, or a combination of the two was found. A very low-volume bowel preparation regimen was non-inferior to a high-volume regimen before CCE in terms of CR and ACR.

Improving the tolerability and safety of 1-L polyethylene glycol plus low-dose ascorbic acid for bowel preparation in a healthy population: a randomized multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

One-liter polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (PEG-ASC) improves patient tolerability, but some patients still show low tolerability to a relatively high content of ASC. This study aimed to improve the tolerability and safety of 1-L PEG with low-dose ASC in comparison with standard 1-L and 2-L PEG-ASC.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial involving 215 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy from June 2020 to January 2021. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety were compared among 1-L PEG with low-dose ASC (50% lower ASC concentration in group A and 25% lower ASC concentration in groups B and C) and standard 1-L and 2-L PEG-ASC with all split regimens.

RESULTS

One-liter PEG with low-dose ASC (groups A-C) had similar bowel cleansing efficacies according to the Harefield Cleansing Scale and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, without negative clinical performance, compared with standard 1-L and 2-L PEG-ASC preparation (all P > .1). One-liter PEG with low-dose ASC had better tolerability compared with 2-L PEG-ASC and less residual fluid retention in the stomach compared with 1-L PEG-ASC, proportional to the amount of ASC. No significant differences were found in the incidences of overall adverse events, mild adverse events, or death or in the occurrence of gastroduodenal erosion or ulcer in upper endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

One-liter PEG with low-dose ASC (25%-50% reduction in dose) for bowel cleansing showed similar efficacy and safety compared with standard 1-L or 2-L PEG-ASC, better tolerability compared with 2-L PEG-ASC, and less residual gastric fluid retention compared with standard 1-L PEG-ASC. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0005490.).

The Effectiveness and Tolerability of a Very Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Compared to Low and High-Volume Polyethylene Glycol-Solutions in the Real-Life Setting

Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for high-quality colonoscopy. Recently, a new very low-volume 1 litre (1L) polyethylene glycol (PEG) plus ascorbate solution (ASC) has been introduced. Our aims were to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of this product compared to low-volume 2L PEG-ASC and high-volume 4L PEG solutions, in a real-life setting. In six endoscopy units in Sweden, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were either prescribed solutions according to local routines, or the very low-volume solution in split dose regimen. Bowel cleansing effectiveness and patient experience was assessed using the Boston Bowel preparation scale (BBPS) and a patient questionnaire. A total of 1098 patients (mean age 58 years, 52% women) were included. All subsegment and the total BBPS scores were significantly greater for 1L PEG-ASC in comparison to other solutions (p < 0.05 for 1L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG for transverse and left colon, otherwise p < 0.001). Nausea was more frequent with 1L PEG-ASC compared to 2L PEG-ASC (p < 0.001) and vomiting were more often reported compared to both other solutions (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 for 2L PEG-ASC and 4L PEG, respectively). Smell, taste, and total experience was better for 1L PEG-ASC compared to 4L PEG (p < 0.001), and similar compared to the 2L PEG-ASC. In conclusion, 1L PEG-ASC leads to better bowel cleansing compared to 2L PEG-ASC or 4L PEG products, with similar or greater patient satisfaction.

1L NER1006 can improve rates of adequate and high-quality bowel cleansing in the right colon: a post hoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The right colon is difficult to cleanse compared with other colon segments. This post hoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials (MORA and NOCT) examined whether 1L polyethylene glycol (PEG) NER1006 and two mid-volume alternatives could improve adequate and high-quality cleansing in the right colon among patients with complete cleansing assessments.

METHODS

Patients received NER1006 (N2D), 2L PEG plus ascorbate (2LPEG) or oral sulphate solution (OSS) as a 2-day evening/morning split-dosing regimen or NER1006 as a same-day morning-only dosing regimen (N1D). Patients had full segmental scoring assigned by treatment-blinded central readers using the Harefield Cleansing Scale. The right colon adequate (score ≥ 2) and high-quality (score ≥ 3) cleansing success of NER1006 (N2D and N1D) versus 2LPEG and OSS was analysed individually and as pooled groups (N2D vs. 2LPEG/OSS). We assessed the comparative right colon cleansing rates of the N2D versus 2LPEG/OSS in overweight males. We also performed a multivariable regression analysis to examine factors affecting cleansing in the right colon.

RESULTS

A total of 1307 patients were included. Pooled N2D showed significantly improved rates of adequate-level cleansing in the right colon compared with 2LPEG (97.5% [504/517] vs. 94.6% [246/260]; p = 0.020) and OSS (97.5% [504/517] vs. 93.8% [244/260]; p = 0.006). In MORA, the rate of adequate right colon cleansing did not significantly differ between N1D and 2LPEG (95.2% [257/270] vs. 94.6% [246/260]; p = 0.383). The rate of right colon high-quality cleansing was significantly improved with N2D or N1D vs. 2LPEG (p < 0.001 for both), and was numerically higher with N2D versus OSS (p = 0.11). In overweight males, NER1006 delivered numerically higher adequate (p = 0.398) and superior high-quality (p = 0.024) cleansing rates versus 2LPEG/OSS. Multivariable regression analysis showed NER1006 was associated with adequate and high-quality cleansing (p = 0.031 and p < 0.001), while time between preparation and colonoscopy was negatively associated (p = 0.034 and p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

NER1006 delivered improved rates of adequate and high-quality right colon cleansing compared with 2LPEG and OSS. The increased rate of high-quality cleansing with NER1006 versus its comparators was also seen in overweight males.

Low-volume regimen without additional liquids or adjunctive agents versus standard bowel preparation in non-constipated patients: a propensity score matching analysis

AIMS

Split-dose, 4-L polyethylene glycol (PEG, HSD) is currently the first-line choice for unselected or difficult colon preparations. Almost all low-volume bowel preparations (BPs) include a large volume of additional liquid and adjunctive agents to improve cleansing efficiency. However, neither HSD nor additional liquids or adjunctive agents of low-volume regimens may be necessary for low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to compare the cleansing efficiency between split-dose, low-volume (2-L) PEG without additional liquids or adjunctive agents (LSD) and HSD in non-constipated patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed from January 2013 to December 2015. Consecutive non-constipated patients who received LSD or HSD BPs were enrolled into LSD and HSD groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce selection bias and potential confounders. The primary outcome was bowel cleansing quality, as evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). The adenoma detection rate (ADR), the most important secondary outcome, was also recorded. Follow-up was conducted in 2016.

RESULTS

After excluding those participants who meet exclusion criteria or lost follow-up, 1656 non-constipated patients underwent LSD (n = 999) or HSD (n = 657) BP. Most patients had a BBPS score ≥6 (LSD vs. HSD, 93.6 vs. 92.9%, p = .166). The segmental BBPS scores were ≥2 in 92 and 91.9% in the LSD and HSD groups, respectively. The overall ADR was 16.7% in the LSD group and 17.5% in the HSD group (p = .334).

CONCLUSION

For non-constipated patients, LSD is not inferior to HSD in cleansing efficiency, while more willing to repeat the same BP.

Split-dose 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbate is non-inferior to split-dose PEG with sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate with similar tolerability: a randomized study

Background and Aim

Post‐marketing studies comparing low‐volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)‐based regimens are limited. This randomized study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a novel 1‐L low‐volume PEG‐based preparation: 1 L PEG+Asc (PEG3350, sodium ascorbate, sodium sulfate, ascorbic acid, sodium chloride, and potassium chloride) with PEG+SPMC (PEG3350, sodium chloride, potassium chloride and sodium sulfate, sodium picosulfate, magnesium oxide, citric acid, and aspartame), prior to routine colonoscopy at an Australian tertiary referral center.

Methods

Outpatients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized to receive either split‐dose 1 L PEG+Asc or split‐dose PEG+SPMC. Bowel preparation quality using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BPPS), modified Aronchick scores, procedure time, cecal intubation, and adenoma detection rates were recorded. Patient compliance and tolerability were captured using a standardized questionnaire.

Results

A total of 173 patients were randomized, of whom 164 completed the study and were allocated to 1 L PEG+Asc (n = 82) or PEG+SPMC (n = 82). Non‐inferiority of 1 L PEG+Asc was demonstrated with 89% achieving successful preparation (total BPPS ≥6 and each sub‐score ≥2) compared with 85.4% in the PEG+SPMC group, resulting in an estimated difference of 3.7% (95% CI −6.6% to 13.9%). The median BBPS was non‐inferior in all colonic segments with 1 L PEG+Asc (BBPS 3 [interquartile range 2–3]) vs PEG+SPMC (BBPS 2 [interquartile range 2–3]). More 1 L PEG+Asc patients reported moderate to severe nausea (P = 0.028), but overall tolerability was similar.

Conclusions

The quality of bowel preparation achieved with 1 L PEG+Asc is non‐inferior to that with PEG+SPMC, with similar tolerability outcomes. Further studies are required in patients at risk of suboptimal bowel preparation.

Effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus standard bowel preparations: A meta-analysis of randomized phase-3 clinical trials

BACKGROUND

A 1 L PEG-based preparation for colonoscopy (NER1006) has been recently developed.

AIMS

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to explore the effectiveness and safety of NER1006 versus traditional preparations.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline and Embase were systematically searched through January 2020 for phase-3 RCTs comparing NER1006 versus standard preparations.

RESULTS

Three RCTs (1879 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included. The analysis showed a higher cleansing success for NER1006 compared standard preparations (OR=1.28; 95% CI 1.00-1.62; p = 0.047, I²=0%) as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon (OR=2.13; 95% CI 1.16-3.94; p = 0.015, I²=76.0%) when assessed by the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). The pooled estimate of the NER1006 effect on ADR showed a higher, although not significant, ADR of the right colon (OR=1.19; 95% CI 0.73-1.92; p = 0.485, I²=53%). When considering the impact of NER1006 on mild to moderate treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), we observed a significant pooled estimate of TEAEs (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.82-2.94; p<0.001, I²=0%).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to traditional preparations, NER1006 showed a better overall cleansing of the colon as well as a greater high-quality cleansing of the right colon, with comparable ADR. A higher incidence of mild to moderate TEAEs was observed for NER1006, in the absence of serious adverse events.