Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This study evaluates the efficacy, safety and tolerability of NER1006 versus a sodium picosulfate and magnesium salt solution (SP + MS) in adult patients requiring bowel cleansing prior to any procedure that requires a clean bowel, using a Day Before Only Dosing regimen. Approximately 484 patients will be randomised with the aim of achieving a minimum of 220 patients in each of the 2 groups.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| NER1006, Day Before-Only Dosing | Experimental | NER1006 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the evening of the day before colonoscopy). |
|
| SP+MS, Day Before-Only Dosing | Active Comparator | SP+MS 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the morning of the day before colonoscopy). |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NER1006, Day Before-Only Dosing | Drug | The subject will self-administer both doses of NER1006 in the evening of Day 1 with 1-2 hours interval. Subject will take mandatory additional clear fluid after each dose. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients With Successful Bowel Cleansing (Overall Colon) | The overall quality of bowel cleansing was assessed by a blinded central reader (an experienced and trained colonoscopist) using the segmental scores of the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). A final HCS grading of A, B, C or D was derived. Grades A and B are classified as successful (i.e. all mucosa could be visualized) and C and D are classified as unsuccessful. Comparison of overall success of cleansing with NER1006 versus SP+MS was evaluated using a non-inferiority study design. | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
| Number of Patients With 'Excellent Plus Good' (Highly Effective) Bowel Cleansing (Colon Ascendens) | The overall quality of bowel cleansing was assessed by a blinded central reader (an experienced and trained colonoscopist) using the segmental scores of the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). Highly effective cleansing in the colon ascendens corresponded to scores 3 (Good) or 4 (Excellent) of the HCS. Adequate plus failure of cleansing corresponded to score 0-2. Comparison of 'Excellent plus good' cleansing of the colon ascendens using NER1006 versus SP+MS was evaluated using a non-inferiority study design. | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Adenoma Detection Rate (Colon Ascendens) | Comparison of the number of patients with at least one adenoma detected in the colon ascendens when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) defined as the number of patients with at least one adenoma in the colon ascendens. | One day (day before colonoscopy). |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Patients must provide written informed consent.
Male and female outpatients and inpatients aged: ≥18 to ≤85 years undergoing a screening, surveillance or diagnostic colonoscopy.
Females of child-bearing potential must have a negative pregnancy test at Screening and at Visit 2 and must be practising one of the following methods of birth control and agree to continue with the regimen throughout the study period (unless postmenopausal or surgically sterile, or whose sole sexual partner has had a successful vasectomy):
Willing, able and competent to complete the entire study and to comply with instructions.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Stefan Schreiber | University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charité - Campus Virchow Klinikum | Berlin | Germany | ||||
| University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 36064325 | Derived | Cash BD, Allen C, Poppers DM. Transient alterations in plasma sodium concentrations with NER1006 bowel preparation: an analysis of three phase III, randomized clinical trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022 Sep 5;22(1):412. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02484-7. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The trial recruited out/in-patients at 19 medical centres in Europe, from November 2014 to July 2015.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | SP+MS, Day Before-Only Dosing | SP+MS 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the morning of the day before colonoscopy). |
| FG001 | NER1006, Day Before-Only Dosing |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| SP+MS, Day Before-Only Dosing | Drug | The subject will self-administer SP+MS in the morning of Day 1 and afternoon of Day 1. Subject will take mandatory additional clear fluid after each dose. |
|
| Adenoma Detection Rate (Overall Colon) |
Comparison of the number of patients with at least one adenoma detected in the overall colon when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) defined as the number of patients with at least one adenoma in the overall colon. |
| One day (day before colonoscopy) |
| Polyp Detection Rate (Colon Ascendens) | Comparison of the number of patients with at least one polyp detected in the colon ascendens when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Polyp detection rate (PDR) defined as the number of patients with at least one polyp in the colon ascendens. | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
| Polyp Detection Rate (Overall Colon) | Comparison of the number of patients with at least one polyp detected in the overall colon when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Polyp detection rate (PDR) defined as the number of patients with at least one polyp in the overall colon. | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
| Kiel |
| 24105 |
| Germany |
| An der Germania Brauerei 6 | Münster | Germany |
| An der Germania Brauerei 6 | Milan | Italy |
| Osp.San Raffaele U.O. Gastroenterologia | Milan | Italy |
| P.T.P.Nuovo Regina Margherita | Rome | Italy |
| Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gashuis | Amsterdam | Netherlands |
| Albert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis | Dordrecht | Netherlands |
| Radboud UMC | Nijmegen | Netherlands |
| Orbis Medisch Centrum | Sittard | Netherlands |
| Centrum Medyczne sw. Lukasza | Częstochowa | Poland |
| Instytut Medycyny Wsi im. Witolda Chodzki w | Lubliniec | Poland |
| Specjalistyczna Praktyka Lekarska dr med. Marek Horynski | Sopot | Poland |
| SPSK Nr 1 im. Prof. Tadeusza Sokolowskiego | Szczecin | Poland |
| Hospital de Vinalopó, Unidad de Endoscopia Digestiva | Elche | Spain |
| Hospital Universitario de la Princesa | Madrid | Spain |
| Hospital Universitario La Paz, Unidad Enfermedad Intestinal | Madrid | Spain |
| Department of Surgery, Raigmore Hospital | Inverness | United Kingdom |
| Derriford Hospital | Plymouth | United Kingdom |
NER1006 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the evening of the day before colonoscopy).
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
The number of participants for analysis, 220 per arm, was based on assumed overall cleansing success rates of 70% for SP+MS and 75% for NER1006, a non-inferiority margin of 10%, and at least 90% power to demonstrate non-inferiority. The overall number of participants analyzed was based on the modified full analysis set (mFAS).
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | SP+MS, Day Before-Only Dosing | SP+MS 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the moring of the day before colonoscopy). |
| BG001 | NER1006, Day Before-Only Dosing | NER1006 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the evening of the day before colonoscopy). |
| BG002 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Categorical | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||||
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
| |||||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Number of Patients With Successful Bowel Cleansing (Overall Colon) | The overall quality of bowel cleansing was assessed by a blinded central reader (an experienced and trained colonoscopist) using the segmental scores of the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). A final HCS grading of A, B, C or D was derived. Grades A and B are classified as successful (i.e. all mucosa could be visualized) and C and D are classified as unsuccessful. Comparison of overall success of cleansing with NER1006 versus SP+MS was evaluated using a non-inferiority study design. | The overall number of participants analyzed was based on the mFAS. This included all randomized patients, except any patient who (i) was randomized but subsequently failed to meet entry criteria and (ii) in whom it was confirmed (from their patient diary) that the same patient did not receive any study drug. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary | Number of Patients With 'Excellent Plus Good' (Highly Effective) Bowel Cleansing (Colon Ascendens) | The overall quality of bowel cleansing was assessed by a blinded central reader (an experienced and trained colonoscopist) using the segmental scores of the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS). Highly effective cleansing in the colon ascendens corresponded to scores 3 (Good) or 4 (Excellent) of the HCS. Adequate plus failure of cleansing corresponded to score 0-2. Comparison of 'Excellent plus good' cleansing of the colon ascendens using NER1006 versus SP+MS was evaluated using a non-inferiority study design. | The overall number of participants analyzed was based on the mFAS. This included all randomized patients, except any patient who (i) was randomized but subsequently failed to meet entry criteria and (ii) in whom it was confirmed (from their patient diary) that the same patient did not receive any study drug. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Adenoma Detection Rate (Colon Ascendens) | Comparison of the number of patients with at least one adenoma detected in the colon ascendens when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) defined as the number of patients with at least one adenoma in the colon ascendens. | The overall number of participants analyzed was based on the mFAS. This included all randomized patients, except any patient who (i) was randomized but subsequently failed to meet entry criteria and (ii) in whom it was confirmed (from their patient diary) that the same patient did not receive any study drug. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | One day (day before colonoscopy). |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Adenoma Detection Rate (Overall Colon) | Comparison of the number of patients with at least one adenoma detected in the overall colon when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) defined as the number of patients with at least one adenoma in the overall colon. | The overall number of participants analyzed was based on the mFAS. This included all randomized patients with the exception of any patient who was randomized but subsequently failed to meet entry criteria and in whom it was confirmed (from their patient diary) that the same patient did not receive any study drug (n=501). | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Polyp Detection Rate (Colon Ascendens) | Comparison of the number of patients with at least one polyp detected in the colon ascendens when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Polyp detection rate (PDR) defined as the number of patients with at least one polyp in the colon ascendens. | The overall number of participants analyzed was based on the mFAS. This included all randomized patients, except any patient who (i) was randomized but subsequently failed to meet entry criteria and (ii) in whom it was confirmed (from their patient diary) that the same patient did not receive any study drug. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Polyp Detection Rate (Overall Colon) | Comparison of the number of patients with at least one polyp detected in the overall colon when NER1006 is used for bowel cleansing versus SP+MS. Polyp detection rate (PDR) defined as the number of patients with at least one polyp in the overall colon. | The overall number of participants analyzed was based on the mFAS. This included all randomized patients, except any patient who (i) was randomized but subsequently failed to meet entry criteria and (ii) in whom it was confirmed (from their patient diary) that the same patient did not receive any study drug. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | One day (day before colonoscopy) |
|
|
Morning of Day 1 (first dose) to Day 9 (final clinic visit)
Safety analyses were based on the safety population which included all randomized patients for whom it could not be ruled out (from their patient diary) that they received study drug at least once (n=476). The analyses are based on treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs). There were no deaths and the serious TEAE was not related to treatment.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | SP+MS, Day Before-Only Dosing | SP+MS 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the morning of the day before colonoscopy). | 0 | 241 | 0 | 241 | 9 | 241 |
| EG001 | NER1006, Day Before-Only Dosing | NER1006 1-Day Day Before-Only Split-Dosing Regimen (to commence on the evening of the day before colonoscopy). | 0 | 235 | 1 | 235 | 32 | 235 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ovarian abscess | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdominal pain | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Non-systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Non-systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vomiting | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Non-systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dehydration | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Non-systematic Assessment |
| |
| Headache | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Non-systematic Assessment |
|
Imputation of failure occurred in 4% of patients. This strict analytical approach reduced the cleansing success rates for both treatments.
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lucy Clayton | Norgine Ltd | +44-1895-826669 | LClayton@norgine.com |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D015179 | Colorectal Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007414 | Intestinal Neoplasms |
| D005770 | Gastrointestinal Neoplasms |
| D004067 | Digestive System Neoplasms |
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D004066 | Digestive System Diseases |
| D005767 | Gastrointestinal Diseases |
| D003108 | Colonic Diseases |
| D007410 | Intestinal Diseases |
| D012002 | Rectal Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| >=65 years |
|
| Male |
|
| Non-Inferiority or Equivalence |
The confidence limits were adjusted for multiple comparisons (two alternative primary endpoints): To be declared non-inferior, the primary endpoint must show a difference in success rates of no greater than 10% in favor of SP+MS using lower 1-sided 97.5% confidence limits. Calculated using exact Clopper-Pearson confidence limits. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|