The novel rapid formulation of intravenous dantrolene (NPJ5008) versus standard dantrolene (Dantrium®): A clinical part-randomised phase 1 study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Delays in treating anaesthesia-induced malignant hyperthermia increase risks of complications and death. NPJ5008 is a novel formulation of the indicated treatment, dantrolene sodium, developed to shorten preparation and administration times compared with the reference formulation Dantrium®. The two formulations have been compared preclinically. OBJECTIVES: Assess bioequivalence of overall dantrolene (free acid) exposure of NPJ5008 versus Dantrium® and ascertain similarities in their pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability profiles. Evaluate preparation/administration time savings for the new formulation. DESIGN: Part 1 of this open-label trial in humans was a 1 : 1 randomised crossover study; part 2 was a single-arm study. Trial pharmacy data and laboratory simulations assessed preparation/administration step timings. SETTING: Single clinical centre in the UK, April to July 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one healthy male and female individuals. INTERVENTIONS: Part 1: single intravenous 60 mg dose of NPJ5008 or Dantrium®, sequentially. Part 2: single intravenous 120 mg dose of NPJ5008. Simulation: five vials per formulation using paediatric and adult cannulas. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall drug exposure to last measurable concentration (AUC 0 to last ) and extrapolated to infinity (AUC 0 to ∞ ) were primary endpoints. Other pharmacokinetic, clinical and muscle-function parameters, and adverse events, were monitored. RESULTS: Adjusted geometric mean ratios of NPJ5008 versus Dantrium® were 90.24 and 90.44% for AUC 0 to last and AUC 0 to ∞ , respectively, with the 90% confidence intervals (CI) within the 80 to 125% acceptance interval, establishing bioequivalence. No new safety issues emerged: any adverse events were of a similar magnitude across treatments and related to pharmacological properties of dantrolene. Pharmacy and simulation data revealed that every step in preparation and administration was 26 to 69% faster for NPJ5008 than Dantrium®. CONCLUSION: NPJ5008 showed comparable pharmacokinetic and safety profiles to Dantrium®, while reducing dantrolene dose preparation/administration times, potentially reducing patient complications/healthcare resourcing in malignant hyperthermia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-005719-35, MHRA approval.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy requires colon cleansing. For this, many polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based preparations still require a high preparation-volume intake. Using an increased osmotic load with ascorbate (Asc), five new low-volume PEG-based bowel preparations (LVPEG) were tested for clinical proof of concept. METHODS: This two-part, open-label study examined preparation-volumes of 1-1.25 L and total required fluid volumes of 2-3 L. Part 1, in healthy volunteers, used mean cumulative 24-h stool weight (target > 2750 g) to identify a lead candidate. Part 2 was endoscopist-blinded: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized before treatment with the selected lead, one of two variants of it, or the control 2 L PEG + Asc. Two primary endpoints were used for proof of concept demonstration: mean 24-h stool weight and bowel cleansing success (Harefield Cleansing Scale). RESULTS: A total of 120 subjects (30 per group) were enrolled/randomized 1:1:1:1 (max 40:60 gender ratio) per completed Part. In Part 1, LVPEG-3 achieved the largest mean stool weight (3399 g: P < 0.0001 vs target) and was selected for Part 2. In Part 2, stool weights exceeded the target, notably for LVPEG-4 (3215 g: P < 0.001), which achieved 100% cleansing success after a total required fluid intake of 2 L. The control achieved 90% cleansing success. Adverse events were few, gastrointestinal in nature and similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: LVPEG-4 achieved a clinically useful combination of cleansing, safety/tolerability and low consumption volume: 1 L preparation + 1 L required additional fluid. Named NER1006, LVPEG-4 demonstrated clinical proof of concept and warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: October 2012. Identifier: NCT01714466 . EudraCT: 2012-003052-37 The trial was prospectively registered.

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/.

Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial.

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/.

Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: NER1006 is the first 32 fluid ounce (1 L) polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation. This randomized, multicenter, colonoscopist/central reader-blinded phase 3 non-inferiority trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of NER1006 versus trisulfate for bowel cleansing. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to receive NER1006 or trisulfate, using evening/morning split-dosing administration. Blinded central readers used the validated Harefield Cleansing Scale to evaluate 2 alternative primary endpoints: overall bowel-cleansing success and high-quality cleansing of the ascending colon/cecum. Secondary endpoints included lesion detection, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) assessment, and adherence. The non-inferiority margin was 10% and the significance threshold was P < .025. RESULTS: Of 621 patients randomized (NER1006, n=310; trisulfate, n=311), 556 were evaluated for efficacy (NER1006, n=276; trisulfate, n=280). NER1006 achieved non-inferiority versus trisulfate for both primary endpoints of overall bowel-cleansing success (85.1% vs 85.0%; difference, 0.14%; one-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit [LCL], -8.15%; P = .528) and high-quality cleansing of the ascending colon/cecum (35.9% versus 29.3%; difference, 6.58%; LCL, -1.69%; P = .059). BBPS assessments supported overall bowel-cleansing success rates. Lesion detection rates were similar between the groups. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events was 14.9% with NER1006 and 9.4% with trisulfate. Both bowel preparations showed similar overall tolerability and safety profiles. Adherence was very high in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: With evening/morning split dosing, NER1006 was as effective as trisulfate for overall bowel and right-sided colon cleansing. Adverse event rates were slightly higher with NER1006 than trisulfate, but did not compromise tolerability, adherence, or efficacy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02254486.).