Existing Bowel Preparation Quality Scales Are Reliable in the Setting of Centralized Endoscopy Reading

BACKGROUND

Development of bowel preparation products has been based upon colon cleansing rating by a local endoscopist. It is unclear how bowel preparation scales perform when centrally evaluated.

AIMS

To evaluate the reliability of bowel preparation quality scales when assessed by central readers.

METHODS

Four central readers evaluated 52 videos in triplicate, 2 weeks apart, during the entire endoscopic procedure (insertion/withdrawal of the colonoscope) and exclusively on colonoscope withdrawal using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), Chicago Bowel Preparation scale, Harefield Cleansing Scale, Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale (OBPQS), Aronchick score, a visual analogue scale, and additional items proposed in a modified Research and Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness process. Reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% confidence interval) for inter-rater reliability of the quality scales ranged from 0.51 to 0.65 (consistent with moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability) during the entire procedure. Corresponding intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability ranged from 0.69 to 0.77 (consistent with substantial intra-rater reliability). Reliability was highest in the right colon and lowest in the left colon. No differences were observed in reliability when assessed for the procedure overall (insertion/withdrawal) relative to assessment on withdrawal alone.

CONCLUSION

All five bowel preparation quality scales had moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability. Panelists considered the Aronchick score too simplistic for clinical trials and recognized that assessment of residual fluid in the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale was not amenable to central assessment.

Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based bowel preparations are effective cleansers but many require high-volume intake. This phase 3, randomized, blinded, multicenter, parallel-group, central reader-assessed study assessed the 1 L PEG NER1006 bowel preparation vs. standard 2 L PEG with ascorbate (2LPEG).

METHODS

Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1:1) to receive NER1006, as an evening/morning (N2D) or morning-only (N1D) regimen, or evening/morning 2LPEG. Cleansing was assessed using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) and the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Primary end points were overall bowel cleansing success and high-quality cleansing in the right colon. Modified full analysis set (mFAS) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed. Mean cleansing scores were analyzed post hoc. RESULTS:  Of 849 randomized patients, efficacy was analyzed in the following patient numbers (mFAS/PP): total n = 822/670; N2D n = 275/220; N1D n = 275/218; 2LPEG n = 272/232. mFAS established noninferiority. PP showed superiority for N2D on overall success (97.3 % vs. 92.2 %; P = 0.014), and for N2D and N1D on right colon high-quality cleansing (N2D 32.3 % vs. 15.9 %, P < 0.001; N1D 34.4 % vs. 15.9 %, P < 0.001) vs. 2LPEG. Using HCS, N2D and N1D attained superior segmental high-quality cleansing (P ≤ 0.003 per segment). N2D showed superior mean segmental HCS scores (P ≤ 0.007 per segment). Both N2D and N1D achieved superior mean overall (P < 0.001 and P = 0.006) and right colon BBPS scores (P < 0.001 and P = 0.013). N2D demonstrated superior right colon polyp detection (P = 0.024). Adherence, tolerability, and safety were comparable between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

NER1006 is the first low-volume preparation to demonstrate superior colon cleansing efficacy vs. standard 2LPEG with ascorbate, with comparable safety and tolerability. European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT)2014-002185-78TRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group, phase 3 trial 2014-002185-78 at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/.

Challenges of correlating pH change with relief of clinical symptoms in gastro esophageal reflux disease: a phase III, randomized study of Zegerid versus Losec

Background

Zegerid (on demand immediate-release omeprazole and sodium bicarbonate combination therapy) has demonstrated earlier absorption and more rapid pH change compared with Losec (standard enteric coated omeprazole), suggesting more rapid clinical relief of heartburn. This Phase III, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized study assessed the clinical superiority of Zegerid versus Losec for rapid relief of heartburn associated with gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Methods

Patients with a history of frequent (2 3 days/week) uncomplicated GERD, were randomized to receive Zegerid (20mg) or Losec (20mg) with corresponding placebo. Study medication was self-administered on the first episode of heartburn, and could be taken for up to 3 days within a 14 day study period. Heartburn severity was self assessed up to 180 minutes post dose (9 point Likert scale). Primary endpoint was median time to sustained response (≥3 point reduction in heartburn severity for ≥45 minutes).

Results

Of patients randomized to Zegerid (N=122) or Losec (N=117), 228/239 had recorded ≥1 evaluable heartburn episodes and were included in the modified intent-to-treat population. No significant between-group differences were observed for median time to sustained response (60.0 vs. 52.2 minutes, Zegerid [N=117] and Losec [N=111], respectively), sustained partial response (both, 37.5 minutes) and sustained total relief (both, 105 minutes). Significantly more patients treated with Zegerid reached sustained total relief within 0–30 minutes post dose in all analysis sets (p<0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated and did not raise any safety concerns.

Conclusions

Superiority of Zegerid over Losec for rapid heartburn relief was not demonstrated; both treatments were equally effective however the rapid onset of action of Losec was unexpected. Factors, including aspects of study design may have contributed to this. This study supports previously reported difficulty in correlating intra-gastric pH change with clinical effect in GERD therapy, highlighting the significance of several technical considerations for studies of this type.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01493089