Clinical Trials Logo

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

NCT number NCT01101841
Other study ID # N30-004
Secondary ID
Status Completed
Phase Phase 3
First received April 8, 2010
Last updated October 14, 2015
Start date March 2010
Est. completion date November 2011

Study information

Verified date October 2015
Source Noven Therapeutics
Contact n/a
Is FDA regulated No
Health authority United States: Food and Drug Administration
Study type Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

To assess the safety and efficacy of Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Capsules 7.5 mg for treatment of vasomotor symptoms (VMS) associated with menopause


Description:

The study is a 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Capsules 7.5 mg in subjects with moderate to severe postmenopausal VMS, defined as follows:

1. Moderate VMS: Sensation of heat with sweating, able to continue activity

2. 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.


Recruitment information / eligibility

Status Completed
Enrollment 570
Est. completion date November 2011
Est. primary completion date September 2011
Accepts healthy volunteers No
Gender Female
Age group 40 Years and older
Eligibility Inclusion Criteria:

1. Female, >40 years of age

2. 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

3. Spontaneous amenorrhea for at least 12 consecutive months

4. Amenorrhea for at least 6 months and meet the biochemical criteria for menopause

5. Bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy >6 weeks with or without hysterectomy

Exclusion Criteria:

1. BMI = 40 kg/m²

2. Known non-responder to previous Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or Serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) treatment for VMS

3. History of self-injurious behavior

4. History of clinical diagnosis of depression; or treatment for depression

5. History of clinical diagnosis of borderline personality disorder

6. Use of an investigational study medication within 30 days prior to screening or during the study

7. Concurrent participation in another clinical trial or previous participation in this trial

8. Family of investigational-site staff

Study Design

Allocation: Randomized, Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study, Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment, Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor), Primary Purpose: Treatment


Related Conditions & MeSH terms


Intervention

Drug:
Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate)
Eligible subjects will be randomized to receive either Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Capsules 7.5 mg or placebo capsules in a 1:1 ratio.
Placebo capsules
Eligible subjects will be randomized to receive either Brisdelle (paroxetine mesylate) Capsules 7.5 mg or placebo capsules in a 1:1 ratio.

Locations

Country Name City State
United States Visions Clinical Research Boynton Beach Florida
United States Meridien Research Brooksville Florida
United States East Valley Family Physicians PLC Chandler Arizona
United States Chattanooga Medical Research, LLC Chattanooga Tennessee
United States Women's Medical Research Group, LLC Clearwater Florida
United States SC Clinical Research Center, LLC Columbia South Carolina
United States Columbus Center for Women's Health Research Columbus Ohio
United States Soapstone Center for Clinical Research Decatur Georgia
United States Downtown Women's Health Care Denver Colorado
United States Hawthorne Research Greensboro North Carolina
United States The Woman's Hospital of Texas Clinical Research Center Houston Texas
United States The Clinical Trial Center, LLC Jenkintown Pennsylvania
United States Altus Research Lake Worth Florida
United States Women's Clinic of Lincoln, PC Lincoln Nebraska
United States Montgomery Women's Health Associates, PC Montgomery Alabama
United States Phoenix Ob-Gyn Associates, LLC Moorestown New Jersey
United States Coastal Carolina Research Center Mt. Pleasant South Carolina
United States Anchor Research Center Naples Florida
United States Clinical Research Associates, Inc. Nashville Tennessee
United States Philadelphia Clinical Research Philadelphia Pennsylvania
United States Clinical Trials Research Services, LLC Pittsburgh Pennsylvania
United States National Clinical Research, Inc. Richmond Virginia
United States Virginia Women's Center Richmond Virginia
United States Rochester Clinical Research Rochester New York
United States Genesis Center For Clinical Research San Diego California
United States Mount Vernon Clinical Research, LLC Sandy Springs Georgia
United States Apex Research Institute Santa Ana California
United States Women's Clinical Research Center Seattle Washington
United States North Spokane Women's Clinic Research Spokane Washington
United States Chase Medical Research, LLC Waterbury Connecticut
United States Comprehensive Clinical Trials, LLC West Palm Beach Florida
United States Hawthorne Medical Research, Inc. Winston-Salem North Carolina

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor Collaborator
Noven Therapeutics

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (4)

Fugate SE, Church CO. Nonestrogen treatment modalities for vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause. Ann Pharmacother. 2004 Sep;38(9):1482-99. Epub 2004 Aug 3. Review. — View Citation

Greene JG. A factor analytic study of climacteric symptoms. J Psychosom Res. 1976;20(5):425-30. — View Citation

Kritz-Silverstein D, Goldani Von Mühlen D, Barrett-Connor E. Prevalence and clustering of menopausal symptoms in older women by hysterectomy and oophorectomy status. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000 Sep;9(7):747-55. — View Citation

Nelson HD, Vesco KK, Haney E, Fu R, Nedrow A, Miller J, Nicolaidis C, Walker M, Humphrey L. Nonhormonal therapies for menopausal hot flashes: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006 May 3;295(17):2057-71. Review. — View Citation

Outcome

Type Measure Description Time frame Safety issue
Primary Mean Change From Baseline in Hot Flash Frequency at 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
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Primary Mean Change From Baseline in Hot Flash Severity 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
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Percent Persistence of Benefit, Statistically Significant Difference in Having 50% or More Reduction Compared to Baseline at Week 24. Persistence of treatment benefit to 24 weeks post treatment was assessed by using the following responder analysis. Responders were defined as those subjects who achieved = 50% reduction from baseline in moderate to severe hot-flash frequency at Week 24; the percent change in hot flash frequency is calculated using the formula:
Percent reduction at week 24 = [(number of moderate to severe hot flash frequency at baseline - number of moderate to severe hot flash frequency at week 24) / number of moderate to severe hot flash frequency at baseline ]*100%.
Week 24 No
Secondary Change in Frequency of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes Frequency From Baseline (BMI <32 kg/m2, Week 4 and Week 12), Median 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Change From Baseline in Total Number of Awakenings Due to Hot Flashes, Median 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Change in Frequency of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes Frequency From Baseline (BMI =32 kg/m2, Week 4 and Week 12), Median 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Change in Severity of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes From Baseline (BMI <32 kg/m2, At Week 4 and Week 12), Median 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Change in Severity of Moderate to Severe Hot Flashes From Baseline (BMI =32 kg/m2, Week 4 and Week 12), Median 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Change From Baseline in Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) at Week 4 and Week 12, Total Score, Median 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Percentage of Responders 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. Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Percent Daytime and Nighttime Responders, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) 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).
Responders: Subjects with NRS Score of 5 Or Less. Non-Responders: Subjects With NRS Score of Greater than Or Equal to 6.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Change From Baseline in Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (ASEX, Week 4 and Week 12) Total Score, Median 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. Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary 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) 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Percent Responders Improvement in VMS From Baseline Using the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scale. 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".
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Effect of Brisdelle (Paroxetine Mesylate) Capsules on Anxiety and Depression 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary Assessment of Mood 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. Week 4 and Week 12 No
Secondary BMI Change From Baseline (kg/m2), Median 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.
Week 4 and Week 12 No
See also
  Status Clinical Trial Phase
Active, not recruiting NCT04587154 - Womens Study to Alleviate Vasomotor Symptoms N/A
Terminated NCT03642119 - Validation of an Objective Instrument to Measure Hot Flashes During Menopause
Completed NCT05061563 - A Study to Learn How a Proton Pump Inhibitor Affects the Way Elinzanetant (BAY 3427080) Moves Into, Through and Out of the Body, and How Much of it Gets Absorbed by the Body When Taken as a Single and Small Radioactive Dose in Healthy Adults Phase 1
Completed NCT05419908 - Trial to Investigate the Effect of ESN364 in Early Postmenopausal Women Suffering From Hot Flashes Phase 2
Completed NCT01281332 - Mechanical Device for the Relief of Hot Flashes Phase 2
Completed NCT01439945 - Magnesium Oxide in Treating Postmenopausal Women With Hot Flashes and a History of Breast Cancer Phase 2
Completed NCT00755417 - Study of Gabapentin Extended Release (G-ER) in the Treatment of Vasomotor (Hot Flashes/Hot Flushes) Symptoms in Postmenopausal Women Phase 3
Completed NCT01293695 - Hypnosis For Hot Flashes Among Postmenopausal Women in a Randomized Clinical Trial N/A
Completed NCT00599456 - Investigation of the Usefulness of Omega 3 Vitamins in the Relief of Hot Flashes in Menopausal Women. N/A
Completed NCT00256685 - Study Evaluating DVS-233 SR to Treat Vasomotor Systems Associated With Menopause Phase 3
Completed NCT00391417 - Efficacy and Safety of a Topical Estradiol Gel for Treatment of Postmenopausal Symptoms Phase 3
Terminated NCT00244894 - Acupuncture in Treating Hot Flashes in Patients With Prostate Cancer N/A
Completed NCT00010712 - Effects of Black Cohosh on Menopausal Hot Flashes Phase 2
Active, not recruiting NCT03580499 - Vitamin B6 in Reducing Hot Flashes in Participants With Prostate Cancer Undergoing Antiandrogen Therapy N/A
Recruiting NCT06030388 - Strength and Aerobic Training Against Hot Flushes in Postmenopausal Women N/A
Recruiting NCT04418115 - Fatigue as a Late Effect in Breast Cancer Survivors - is Acupuncture a Treatment Option? N/A
Recruiting NCT04861701 - Effect and Predictors for Hot Flush in Women Undergoing Static Stretching Exercise N/A
Active, not recruiting NCT05086705 - EMBr Wave for the Reduction of Hot Flashes in Women With a History of Breast Cancer N/A
Completed NCT05099159 - A Study to Learn More About How Well Elinzanetant Works and How Safe it is for the Treatment of Vasomotor Symptoms (Hot Flashes) That Are Caused by Hormonal Changes Over 26 Weeks in Women Who Have Been Through the Menopause (OASIS-2) Phase 3
Completed NCT01140646 - Evaluation of SAMe for Hot Flashes Phase 2

External Links