Efficacy/Safety Study of Brisdelle™ (Formerly Known as Mesafem) in the Treatment of Vasomotor Symptoms (VMS) (N30-003)
|
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details. |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01361308 |
|
Recruitment Status :
Completed
First Posted : May 26, 2011
Results First Posted : May 20, 2014
Last Update Posted : October 15, 2015
|
- Study Details
- Tabular View
- Study Results
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
| Condition or disease | Intervention/treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
| Postmenopausal Symptoms | Drug: Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Drug: Placebo capsules | Phase 3 |
This is 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Capsules 7.5 mg and placebo capsules in subjects with moderate to severe postmenopausal VMS, defined as follows:
- Moderate VMS: Sensation of heat with sweating, able to continue activity
- Severe VMS: Sensation of heat with sweating, causing cessation of activity
The study is comprised of a screening period, a run-in period, a baseline visit, and a double-blind treatment period.
| Study Type : | Interventional (Clinical Trial) |
| Actual Enrollment : | 614 participants |
| Allocation: | Randomized |
| Intervention Model: | Parallel Assignment |
| Masking: | Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor) |
| Primary Purpose: | Treatment |
| Official Title: | A Phase 3, Twelve-Week, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Efficacy and Safety Study of Mesafem (Paroxetine Mesylate) Capsules in the Treatment of Vasomotor Symptoms Associated With Menopause |
| Study Start Date : | May 2011 |
| Actual Primary Completion Date : | December 2011 |
| Actual Study Completion Date : | February 2012 |
| Arm | Intervention/treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate)
Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate)
|
Drug: Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate)
Subjects will be randomized to receive either Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Capsules 7.5 mg or placebo in a 1:1 ratio, administered once daily at bedtime beginning on Day 1 and continuing up to Day 84
Other Names:
|
|
Placebo Comparator: Placebo Capsules
Placebo Capsules
|
Drug: Placebo capsules
Subjects will be randomized to receive either Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Capsules 7.5 mg or placebo in a 1:1 ratio, administered once daily at bedtime beginning on Day 1 and continuing up to Day 84
Other Name: Sugar pill |
- Mean Change in Frequency of Moderate to Severe VMS From Baseline at Week 4 and Week 12. [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subjects recorded the number of hot flashes per week using an electronic diary. The results reported are not hot flashes per week.
The results reported are:
- Mean Baseline frequency of moderate to severe VMS
- Mean change in frequency of moderate to severe VMS from baseline to Week 4
- Mean change in frequency of moderate to severe VMS from baseline to Week 12.
- Mean Change From Baseline in Hot Flash Severity at Week 4 and Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subjects recorded the number of hot flashes per week using an electronic diary. Severity score for hot flashes for each subject was calculated as the sum of 2 times the number of moderate hot flashes, plus 3 times the number of severe hot flashes, divided by the total number of moderate and severe hot flashes.
Weekly Severity Score = (2•Fm +3•FS)/(Fm + FS) Daily Severity Score = {(2•F) m +3•FS)/(Fm + FS)}/7 Where, Fm= Frequency of Moderate Hot Flashes Fs = Frequency of Severe Hot Flashes The calculated severity score is reported below.
- Clinical Meaningfulness Anchored to Patient Global Improvement (PGI-I) (%) [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
A patient improvement scale questionnaire was used during participant visits.
The clinical meaningfulness of the observed treatment effect was demonstrated by performing the following analysis:
Subjects were categorized in to 2 groups (satisfied and unsatisfied). Based on a 7 point patient global impression (PGI) questionnaire which assesses the subject improvement in VMS. Subjects were considered satisfied with their treatment if their response to the question "Compared to before starting the study medication, how would you describe your hot flushes now?" is 'Very much better' (1) or 'Much better' (2) or 'A little better' (3) and will be considered unsatisfied if their response to the same question is 'No change' (4) or 'A little worse' (5) or 'Much worse' (6) or 'Very much worse' (7). Receiver Operator Curve (ROC) analysis was performed on the combined data.
Subjects who were satisfied with their treatment were considered to have a treatment effect with clinical meaningfulness
- Change From Baseline in Total Number of Awakenings Due to Hot Flashes, Median [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Participants completed a electronic diary to report nightime awakenings. Subjects took study drug once daily at bedtime and they were instructed to complete daily hot flash and sleep diaries to record the number of hot flashes daily, the severity of each episode of hot flash and total number of awakenings due to hot flashes.
The diary data was used to evaluate and compare the treatment groups, on the change from baseline to Week 4 and Week 12, in the total number of awakenings due to hot flashes. The total number of awakenings due to hot flashes in the run-in period was used as baseline.
- Change in Frequency of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes Frequency From Baseline (BMI <32 kg/m2, Week 4 and Week 12), Median [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subjects were weighed at each clinic visit and reported the number of hot flashes using an electronic diary.
For the BMI <32 kg/m2 subgroup, the mean weekly reduction in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes from Baseline was calculated for Week 4 and Week 12.
- Change in Frequency of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes Frequency From Baseline (BMI ≥32 kg/m2, Week 4 and Week 12), Median [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subjects were weighed at each clinic visit and reported the number of hot flashes using an electronic diary.
For the BMI ≥32 kg/m2 subgroup, the mean weekly reduction in frequency of moderate to severe hot flashes from Baseline was calculated for Week 4 and Week 12.
- Change in Severity of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes From Baseline (BMI <32 kg/m2, At Week 4 and Week 12), Median [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subjects were weighed at each clinic visit and reported the number of hot flashes using an electronic diary.
For the BMI <32 kg/m2 subgroup, the mean weekly reduction in the severity of moderate to severe hot flashes from Baseline was calculated at Week 4 and Week 12.
Subjects recorded the number of hot flashes per week using an electronic diary. Severity score for hot flashes for each subject was calculated as the sum of 2 times the number of moderate hot flashes, plus 3 times the number of severe hot flashes, divided by the total number of moderate and severe hot flashes.
Weekly Severity Score = (2•Fm +3•FS)/(Fm + FS) Daily Severity Score = {(2•F) m +3•FS)/(Fm + FS)}/7 Where, Fm= Frequency of Moderate Hot Flashes Fs = Frequency of Severe Hot Flashes The calculated severity score is reported below.
- Change in Severity of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes From Baseline (BMI ≥32 kg/m2, Week 4 and Week 12), Median [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subjects were weighed at each clinic visit and reported the number of hot flashes using an electronic diary.
For the BMI ≥32 kg/m2 subgroup, the mean weekly reduction in the severity of moderate to severe hot flashes from Baseline was calculated at Week 4 and Week 12.
Subjects recorded the number of hot flashes per week using an electronic diary. Severity score for hot flashes for each subject was calculated as the sum of 2 times the number of moderate hot flashes, plus 3 times the number of severe hot flashes, divided by the total number of moderate and severe hot flashes.
Weekly Severity Score = (2•Fm +3•FS)/(Fm + FS) Daily Severity Score = {(2•F) m +3•FS)/(Fm + FS)}/7 Where, Fm= Frequency of Moderate Hot Flashes Fs = Frequency of Severe Hot Flashes The calculated severity score is reported below.
- Change From Baseline in Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) at Week 4 and Week 12, Total Score, Median [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
The Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) was used for this measurement. The scale has 21 questions and measures symptoms in 4 areas; these are psychological (anxiety and depression), physical, vasomotor, and libido.
The severity of the symptom was scored as: 0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate, and 3=severe. Anxiety was determined by using the sum of scores 1 to 6, and depression was determined by using the sum of scores 7 to 11. Physical aspects were determined by using the sum of scores 12 to 18; vasomotor aspects were determined by using the sum of scores 19 to 20; and libido was determined by using the score for question 21.
The total GCS score ranges from "0" to "63" which is the sum of all the scores for the 21-symptom assessment questions in this scale. Each subject's total GCS score at baseline and at Week 4 and Week 12 were used to calculate change from baseline in these symptoms. The change from baseline is reported below.
- Percentage of Responders [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]Participants reported the number of hot flashes using an electronic diary. Participants who hd a ≥50% reduction in hot flash frequency were defined as responders. The percent of responders is presented below.
- Percentage of Patient Global Improvement (PGI) Scale Responders (%) [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Percentage of PGI Responders: Subject's overall improvement in VMS from baseline assessed using the Patient Global Improvement (PGI) scale. Responders: Subjects Achieving a Score of "Very Much Better" Or "Much Better" Or "A Little Better".
Non Responders: Subjects with a Score of "No Change" Or "A Little Worse" Or "Much Worse" Or "Very Much Worse".
Patient Global Improvement (PGI) scale is described below:
Compared to before starting study medication, how would you describe your hot flushes now? 0 = Not assessed
- = Very much better
- = Much better
- = A little better
- = No change
- = A little worse
- = Much worse
- = Very much worse
- Percent Daytime and Nighttime Responders, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subject's overall improvement in VMS from Baseline assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) The NRS is measured on a scale of 0 to 10 on how bothered the subject was by her VMS (0=not bothered at all and 10=very much bothered).
The measure being reported below is percentage of responders who had an improvement in NRSscore at Week 4 and Week 12 compared to baseline. A responder is defined as a subject who had an improvement in the NRS score. An improvement is defined as a score ≤5 on each question.
- Change From Baseline in Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX, Week 4 and Week 12) Total Score [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
The Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX) is a 5-item rating scale that quantifies sex drive, arousal, vaginal lubrication/penile erection, ability to reach orgasm, and satisfaction from orgasm. Possible total scores range from 5 to 30, with the higher scores indicating more sexual dysfunction.
The sum of the scores for all 5 items was calculated at Week 4 and Week 12. The results presented below are change from baseline at Week 4 and Week 12.
- Effect of Paroxetine Mesylate Capsules on Percent Improvement of Hot Flash Interference From Baseline at Week 4 and Week 12, Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Interference of hot flashes was measured by using the hot flash-related daily interference scale (HFRDIS). The HFRDIS is a 10-item scale that measures the degree to which hot flashes interfere with 9 daily activities and the tenth item measures the degree to which hot flashes interfere with each of the other items. Subjects can score for each item on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 = Do not interfere and a score of 10 = Completely interferes.
The measure being reported below is percentage of responders who had an improvement in HFRDIS score at Week 4 and Week 12 compared to baseline. A responder is defined as a subject who had an improvement in the HFRDIS score. An improvement is defined as a score ≤3 on each question.
- Percent Responders Improvement in VMS From Baseline Using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale. [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Proportion of NRS Responders: Subject's overall improvement in VMS from Baseline was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)
The Clinical Global Impression - Severity scale (CGI-S) is a 7-point scale that requires the clinician to rate the severity of the patient's illness at the time of assessment, relative to the clinician's past experience with patients who have the same diagnosis. Considering total clinical experience, a patient is assessed on severity of mental illness at the time of rating 1, normal, not at all ill; 2, borderline mentally ill; 3, mildly ill; 4, moderately ill; 5, markedly ill; 6, severely ill; or 7, extremely ill.
Responders: Subjects Achieving a Score of "Very Much Improved" Or "Much Improved" Or "Minimally Improved".
Non Responders: Subjects with a Score of "No Change" Or "Minimally Worse" Or "Much Worse" Or "Very Much Worse".
- Effect of Brisdelle (Paroxetine Mesylate) Capsules on Anxiety and Depression [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Depression & anxiety were measured by using the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale (HADS).
The HADS was developed to assess anxiety & depression. It is meant to differentiate symptoms of depression with those of anxiety.
Number of items: 14 (7 questions relating to anxiety; 7 questions relating to depression).
Responses are based on the relative frequency of symptoms over the past week, using a four point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very often indeed).
Responses are summed to provide separate scores for anxiety and depression symptomology with possible scores ranging from 0 to 21 for each scale.
The results presented below are the percentage of participants with abnormal HADS Scores for both Abnormal Anxiety & Abnormal Depression at Week 4 and Week 12.
- Assessment of Mood [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]Mood was measured by using the Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire. The Profile of Moods States (POMS) is a 65-item multi-dimensional measure that provides a method of assessing transient, fluctuating active mood states. Key areas that are measured include: tension-anxiety, anger-hostility, fatigue-inertia, depression-dejection, vigor-activity, confusion-bewilderment. Responses to questions are scored with the following numerical values: Not at all = 1, A little = 2, Moderate = 3, Quite a bit = 4, Extremely = 5. A total score for a domain was obtained by summing the responses of individual items in the domain. The total POMS score can range from "65" to "325." Each subject's total POMS score at baseline and at Week 4 and Week 12 were used to calculate the percent of participants with less disturbance in mood at Week 4 and Week 12 compared to baseline. The percent of participants with less disturbance in mood is reported below.
- BMI Change From Baseline (kg/m2), Median [ Time Frame: Week 4 and Week 12 ]
Subjects were weighed at each clinic visit and reported the number of hot flashes using an electronic diary.
Assessment of the effect of Brisdelle compared with placebo on body mass index.
Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.
| Ages Eligible for Study: | 40 Years and older (Adult, Older Adult) |
| Sexes Eligible for Study: | Female |
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
Inclusion Criteria:
- Female, ≥ 40 years of age at screening (inclusive)
- Reported more than 7-8 moderate to severe hot flashes per day (average) or 50-60 moderate to severe hot flashes per week for at least 30 days prior to the screening visit
- Spontaneous amenorrhea for at least 12 consecutive months or
- Amenorrhea for at least 6 months and meet the biochemical criteria for menopause or
- Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy ≥ 6 weeks with or without hysterectomy
Exclusion Criteria:
- Known non-responder to previous Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or Serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) treatment for VMS
- History of self injurious behavior
- History of clinical diagnosis of depression or treatment for depression
- History of clinical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder
- Use of an investigational study medication within 30 days prior to screening or during the study
- Concurrent participation in another clinical trial or previous participation in this trial
- Family of investigational-site staff
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01361308
Show 74 study locations
| Principal Investigator: | Corey Jacobs, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Donna DeSantis, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Robert Phillips, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Louise Taber, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Paige C. Brainard, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Mark Stripling, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Gioi Smith-Nguyen, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Anthony Dulgeroff, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Elise Kwon, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Douglas Young, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | William Koltun, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Dana Shipp, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Eric Ross, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Arthur Waldbaum, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Theodore Cooper, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | J B. Stern, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Paul DiGrazia, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Robert Spitz, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | James A Simon, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Mildred Farmer, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | James Andersen, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Steven Bowman, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Rene Casanova, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Mary Yankaskas, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Andrew Kaunitz, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Ronald Surowitz, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Lisa Cohen, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Lisa Vendeland, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Tyrone Malloy, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Stephen C. Blank, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Mark Turner, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Carl R Lang, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Arthur Donovan, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Armen Arslanian, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Shiao-Yu Lee, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Gayle Moyer, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Geoffrey Turner, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Susan L Hendrix, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Mark Barber, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Stephen Swanson, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Timothy Sauter, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Steven Sussman, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Elizabeth Bretton, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Lance A. Rudolph, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Kenneth Levey, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Pouru Bhiwandi, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Richard E. Hedrick, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Gregory P Tarleton, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Mira Baron, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | David J Portman, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Milroy Samuel, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Stuart Weprin, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | James Liu, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Angelique Barreto, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Marvin Kalafer, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Larry S. Seidman, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Saul R. Berg, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Susan Floyd, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Scott Wilson, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Cynthia Strout, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | D. S. Harnsberger, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Janet Dittus, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Gregg Lucksinger, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Anna Damian, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Sandra Hurtado, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Alfred Poindexter, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Nancy Campbell, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | William Jennings, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Jose Ruiz, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | John A. Hoekstra, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Peter A. Zedler, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Franklin Morgan, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Robin Kroll, MD | ||
| Principal Investigator: | Derrick R Havin, MD |
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
| Responsible Party: | Noven Therapeutics |
| ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01361308 |
| Other Study ID Numbers: |
N30-003 |
| First Posted: | May 26, 2011 Key Record Dates |
| Results First Posted: | May 20, 2014 |
| Last Update Posted: | October 15, 2015 |
| Last Verified: | October 2015 |
|
Menopause Vasomotor Symptoms Hot Flashes Perimenopause |
Climacteric Symptoms Mesafem Low-Dose Mesylate salt of Paroxetine (LDMP) |
|
Paroxetine Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors Neurotransmitter Uptake Inhibitors Membrane Transport Modulators Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action Neurotransmitter Agents Serotonin Agents |
Physiological Effects of Drugs Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation Antidepressive Agents Psychotropic Drugs Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6 Inhibitors Cytochrome P-450 Enzyme Inhibitors Enzyme Inhibitors |