A Study For Pregabalin In Patients With Fibromyalgia

Assessment of mean pain score was based on participant's daily pain diary. The daily pain diary consisted of an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The participants rated their pain during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily at awakening. The endpoint mean pain score was defined as the mean of the Week 14 pain diary entries in the double-blind treatment phase. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 pain diary entries up to and including Day 1.

The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was a participant-rated instrument that measured change in participant's overall status on a scale ranging from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse), which was based on a validated scale, the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC). Categories were defined based on the PGIC scores as followed: 1 = very much improved, 2 = much improved, 3 = minimally improved, 4 = no change, 5 = minimally worse, 6 = much worse and 7 = very much worse.

The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was a 20-item participant-reported outcome instrument designed to assess health status, progress, and outcomes in participants with fibromyalgia. It contained 10 subscales. There were 11 questions that are related specifically to physical functioning. The remaining items assessed pain, fatigue, stiffness, difficulty working, and symptoms of anxiousness and depression. Score range for each subscale was 0 to 10. The 10 subscales were combined to yield a total score with range from 0 to 100. The total score provided an estimation of fibromyalgia impact with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

Assessment of mean pain score was based on participant's daily pain diary. The daily pain diary consisted of an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The participants rated their pain during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily at awakening. Weekly mean pain score was calculated as mean value of the observations within the window for each week during the double-blind treatment phase. A participant with at least 30% reduction in weekly mean pain score from baseline to Week 14 was defined as a 30% responder.

Assessment of mean pain score was based on participant's daily pain diary. The daily pain diary consisted of an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The participants rated their pain during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily at awakening. Weekly mean pain score was calculated as mean value of the observations within the window for each week during the double-blind treatment phase. A participant with at least 50% reduction in weekly mean pain score from baseline to Week 14 was defined as a 50% responder.

The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of scores represented for sleep disturbance was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of scores represented for snoring, awaken short of breath and sleep adequacy was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of quantity of sleep parameter was 0 to 24 and somnolence was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of sleep problem index overall score was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index.

The Daily Sleep Interference Scale was an 11-point numerical scale ranging from 0 (does not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interferes [unable to sleep due to pain]). Participants were asked to describe how their pain had interfered with their sleep during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily upon awakening. Baseline Mean Sleep Interference score was defined as the mean of all available last 7 sleep interference score diary entries up to and including Day 1.

The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Wake after Sleep Onset (sWASO) parameter subjectively estimated the total amount of time the participant was awake after initial sleep onset until final awakening. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Latency to Sleep Onset (sLSO) parameter subjectively estimated the amount of time to fall asleep after lights out. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Number of Awakenings after Sleep Onset (sNAASO) parameter subjectively estimated the total number of times the participant awakened during the night until final awakening. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Total Sleep Time (sTST) parameter subjectively estimated the total amount of time the participant was asleep after lights out until final awakening. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Sleep Quality parameter subjectively rated the quality of sleep during the past night by selecting a number between 0 (very poor) and 10 (excellent). Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

The Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale was a self-administered survey that yielded a Global Fatigue Index by assessing the participant's level of fatigue and the degree to which fatigue interferes with activities of daily living. It contained 16 items and measured 4 dimensions of fatigue: severity (2 items), distress (1 item), degree of interference in activities of daily living (11 items), and timing (2 items). Index range was 1 to 50 and higher scores reflected greater impairment.

The Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was a self-administered questionnaire that measured each of the following 8 health concepts: Physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, social functioning, bodily pain, mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, vitality, and general health perception. Mental component included mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, vitality and general health perception. Score range for mental component summary score was 0 to 100 and higher scores reflected better participant status.

The Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was a self-administered questionnaire that measured each of the following 8 health concepts: Physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, social functioning, bodily pain, mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, vitality, and general health perception. Physical component included physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, social functioning and bodily pain. Score range for physical component summary score was 0 to 100 and higher scores reflected better participant status.

The Pain Visual Analog Scale (Pain VAS) was a horizontal line; 100 mm in length, self administered by the participants in order to rate pain from 0 "no pain" to 100 "worst possible pain".

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was a self-reported 14-item instrument that consisted of two 7-item subscales that measure the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. For each subscale, score range was 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was a self-reported 14-item instrument that consisted of two 7-item subscales that measure the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. For each subscale, range was 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation participant administered a product or medical device. A Serious adverse event (SAE) was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that resulted in death; was life-threatening (immediate risk of death); required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability (substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions); congenital anomaly/birth defect. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were events between first dose of study drug and up to follow-up visit (Study Day 105) that were absent before treatment or that worsened after treatment. AEs included both SAEs and non-SAEs.

A mild Adverse Event (AE) was an AE that did not interfere with participant's usual function. A moderate AE was an AE that interfered participant's usual function to some extent. A severe AE was an AE that interfered significantly with participant's usual function.