Patient experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, multicenter US survey

Brooks D Cash, Mary Beth C Moncrief, Michael S Epstein, David M Poppers, Brooks D Cash, Mary Beth C Moncrief, Michael S Epstein, David M Poppers

Abstract

Background: NER1006 (Plenvu®, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Bridgewater, NJ) is a 1 L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation indicated for colonoscopy in adults. A US online survey assessed real-world ease of use and treatment satisfaction in individuals who received NER1006.

Methods: Adults were recruited from 444 US community gastrointestinal practices and provided a kit number for enrollment into an online survey to be completed within 2 weeks. Survey questions evaluated colonoscopy history and prior bowel preparation(s) prescribed, patient experience during NER1006 administration, and patient satisfaction with the bowel preparation process. A 9-point predefined grading scale was used to evaluate ease of NER1006 preparation and consumption (range, 1 "very difficult" to 9 "very easy"); the perceived importance of volume requirement and clear liquid options (range, 1 "not important at all" to 9 "very important"); and patient satisfaction (range, 1 "not satisfied at all" to 9 "very satisfied").

Results: 1630 patients were enrolled, 1606 underwent colonoscopy, and 1598 completed the survey between September 15, 2018 and February 28, 2019. Among 1606 patients who had a colonoscopy, 62.5% were female, and the mean patient age was 54.4 years (range 18-89 years). Most patients (74.7%) did not report a family history of colon cancer, 62.6% had undergone prior colonoscopy, and 64.8% were undergoing colonoscopy for routine colorectal cancer screening. A majority (76.1%) of patients who completed the survey reported that NER1006 was very easy to prepare and take, and 89.9% were very or moderately satisfied with NER1006 overall. Most (97.6%) patients reported consuming all or most of the bowel preparation. Among 1005 patients with previous bowel preparation use, 84.7% indicated that their experience with NER1006 was much better or better (65.3%) or about the same (19.4%) compared with previously used bowel preparations, while only 15.3% rated NER1006 as worse or much worse.

Conclusions: In this first real-world, US multicenter survey, patient-reported experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy was favorable and adherence was high. The majority of patients were very or moderately satisfied with the overall experience and found it much better/better than previously used bowel preparations.

Trial registration: Not applicable.

Keywords: Bowel preparation; Cathartics; NER1006; Patient satisfaction; Plenvu; Survey; Treatment adherence.

Conflict of interest statement

BDC reports having served as a speaker, consultant, and advisory board member for Salix Pharmaceuticals. MBCM is an employee of Synchrony Medical Communications, LLC, an organization that has received funding from Salix Pharmaceuticals for manuscript development. MSE reports having nothing to disclose. DMP reports serving as a consultant and educator for Olympus Medical.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient response on importance of total volume requirement. N = 1598
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Patient satisfaction. N = 1598; used with permission from Cash B. and Moncrief MBC, abstract 534. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019; 114:S36 [14]
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
NER1006 experience compared with other bowel cleansing medications previously used. Patients may have selected > 1 prior bowel preparation, 4 L PEG data are for GoLYTELY® (Braintree Laboratories, Inc., Braintree, MA, United States), and not all data are shown (other bowel preparation used or data not available). OSS: oral sodium sulfate, OTC: over-the-counter, PEG: polyethylene glycol

References

    1. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy C, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254–272. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.063.
    1. American Cancer Society . Cancer Facts and Figures 2020. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2020.
    1. White A, Thompson TD, White MC, et al. Cancer screening test use—United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(8):201–206. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6608a1.
    1. Greenspan M, Chehl N, Shawron K, et al. Patient non-adherence and cancellations are higher for screening colonoscopy compared with surveillance colonoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(10):2930–2936. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3664-2.
    1. Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ., 3rd A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(12):3186–3194. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.07129.x.
    1. Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, Chalasani N. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(6):1797–1802. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03874.x.
    1. Martel M, Barkun AN, Menard C, Restellini S, Kherad O, Vanasse A. Split-dose preparations are superior to day-before bowel cleansing regimens: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(1):79–88. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.004.
    1. Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 2):700–706. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.047.
    1. Harrison NM, Hjelkrem MC. Bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: balancing efficacy, safety, cost and patient tolerance. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;8(1):4–12. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i1.4.
    1. Plenvu® (polyethylene glycol 3350, sodium ascorbate, sodium sulfate, ascorbic acid, sodium chloride and potassium chloride for oral solution) [package insert]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Norgine B.V.; 2019.
    1. DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J, Epstein MS. NOCT Study Group: 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. 2018;87(3):677–687. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.07.047.
    1. Bisschops R, Manning J, Clayton LB, Ng Kwet Shing R, Álvarez-González M. MORA Study Group: Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy. 2019;51(1):60–72. doi: 10.1055/a-0638-8125.
    1. Schreiber S, Baumgart DC, Drenth JPH, et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial. Endoscopy. 2019;51(1):73–84. doi: 10.1055/a-0639-5070.
    1. Cash BD, Moncrief MB. Patient experience with NER1006 as a bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective, multicenter US survey (abstract 534) Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:S309. doi: 10.14309/01.ajg.0000591668.99204.58.
    1. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):31–53. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058.
    1. Jang JY, Chun HJ. Bowel preparations as quality indicators for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(11):2746–2750. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i11.2746.
    1. McLachlan SA, Clements A, Austoker J. Patients' experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context–a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(2):137–146. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2011.04.010.
    1. Waldmann E, Penz D, Majcher B, et al. Impact of high-volume, intermediate-volume and low-volume bowel preparation on colonoscopy quality and patient satisfaction: an observational study. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2019;7(1):114–124. doi: 10.1177/2050640618809842.
    1. Bethlehem J. Selection bias in web surveys. Int Stat Rev. 2010;78(2):161–188. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x.
    1. Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016;9:211–217. doi: 10.2147/JMDH.S104807.

Source: PubMed

Подписаться