To Evaluate Patient Preference of Movantik and Polyethylene Glycol 3350 for Opioid Induced Constipation

The Patient Preference Assessment was conducted at Visit 5 using a 7-point scale in subjects with chronic non-cancer pain. The 3 categories were formed by collapsing the 7-point rating scale to: 1. Prefer Movantik (including Strong preference for Movantik, Moderate preference for Movantik, Slight preference for Movantik), 2. No preference, and 3. Prefer PEG 3350 (including Strong preference for PEG 3350, Moderate preference for PEG 3350, and Slight preference for PEG 3350). The number of subjects in each category is presented for the total number of subjects in the Per-Protocol (PP) Set.

The Patient Preference Assessment was conducted at Visit 5 using a 7-point scale in subjects with chronic non-cancer pain. The following categories were the possible responses: Strong preference for Movantik, Moderate preference for Movantik, Slight preference for Movantik, No preference, Slight preference for PEG 3350, Moderate preference for PEG 3350 and Strong preference for PEG 3350. Prefer Movantik included subjects in the categories Strong preference for Movantik, Moderate preference for Movantik and Slight preference for Movantik. Prefer PEG 3350 included subjects in the categories Strong preference for PEG 3350, Moderate preference for PEG 3350 and Slight preference for PEG 3350. Preference for Period 1 treatment and Preference for Period 2 treatment included subjects who preferred the first and second treatments respectively taken within a given treatment sequence. The number of subjects in each category is presented per treatment sequence for subjects in the PP Set.

In order to assess the reason for patient preference of Movantik or PEG 3350, subjects reported on the influence of 5 medication characteristics using a 4-point rating scale. The following were the scale options: efficacy ('worked better to relieve my OIC'), tolerability ('tolerated better'), convenience ('was more convenient'), works quickly ('worked quickly') and works predictably ('worked predictably'). For each characteristic, influence scores were rated as: 0 = No influence, 1 = Mildly influenced, 2 = Moderately influenced or 3 = Strongly influenced. The scale range for each characteristic was from 0 to 3, and the median score for each characteristic is presented for the overall PP Set according to which treatment was preferred.

The assessment was only completed by subjects who indicated an overall preference.

In order to assess the reason for patient preference of Movantik or PEG 3350, subjects reported on the influence of 5 medication characteristics using a 4-point rating scale. The following were the scale options: efficacy ('worked better to relieve my OIC'), tolerability ('tolerated better'), convenience ('was more convenient'), works quickly ('worked quickly') and works predictably ('worked predictably'). For each characteristic, influence scores were rated as: 0 = No influence, 1 = Mildly influenced, 2 = Moderately influenced or 3 = Strongly influenced. The scale range for each characteristic was from 0 to 3, and the number of subjects in each characteristic category is presented for the overall PP Set according to which treatment was preferred.

The assessment was only completed by subjects who indicated an overall preference.

PGIC was measured on a 7-point scale at the end of each two-week treatment period to assess the subject's impression of the effectiveness of the treatment received for OIC. The scoring was as follows: 1 = No change (or condition has gotten worse); 2 = Almost the same, hardly any change at all; 3 = A little better, but no noticeable change; 4 = Somewhat better, but the change has not made any real difference; 5 = Moderately better, and a slight but noticeable change; 6 = Better and a definite improvement that has made a real and worthwhile difference; and 7 = A great deal better and a considerable improvement that has made all the difference. The score range is from 1 to 7, with 1 indicating the least improvement and 7 indicating the greatest improvement in OIC symptoms.

Mean score results are presented for each treatment for Visits 3 and 5.

PGIC was measured on a 7-point scale at the end of each two-week treatment period to assess the subject's impression of the effectiveness of the treatment received for OIC. The subjects selected one of the following PGIC items as their response: 1 = No change (or condition has gotten worse); 2 = Almost the same, hardly any change at all; 3 = A little better, but no noticeable change; 4 = Somewhat better, but the change has not made any real differences; 5 = Moderately better, and a slight but noticeable change; 6 = Better and a definite improvement that has made a real and worthwhile difference; and 7 = A great deal better and a considerable improvement that has made all the difference. The score range is from 1 to 7, with 1 indicating the least improvement and 7 indicating the greatest improvement in OIC symptoms.

The number of subjects responding to each PGIC item at Visits 3 and/or 5 is presented for each treatment overall.

The BFI is a 3-item questionnaire administered by a study clinician to measure constipation from the subject's perspective (ease of defecation, feeling of complete evacuation, and personal judgment of constipation). For each item the subject was asked to rate their response on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates the best response (easy/no diffculty) and 100 the worst response (severe difficulty). The total BFI score was calculated as the mean of the 3 item scores.

The mean change from baseline in BFI scores at Visits 3 and/or 5 are presented.