Randomized Placebo Controlled Efficacy And Safety Study Investigating GW876008 In Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome

For the assessment of average adequate relief rate from IBS symptoms for a participant was planned by collecting the response of a question 'In the past seven days have you had adequate relief of your IBS pain or discomfort? However, in error, the question was not collected in the IVRS system. Therefore, data for this endpoints was not collected during this study.

For the assessment of changes in weekly adequate relief rates during the treatment periods was planned by collecting the response of a question. Overall response was defined as having achieved adequate relief in last 4 weeks. However, in error, the question was not collected in the IVRS system. Therefore, data for this endpoints was not collected during this study.

For the assessment of average adequate relief rate from IBS symptoms for a participant was planned by collecting the response of a question whether weekly adequate relief from IBS symptoms was achieved?. However, in error, the question was not collected in the IVRS system. Therefore, data for this endpoints was not collected during this study.

The GIS is comprised of ten questions, all rated on a seven point scale ranging from substantially worse (7) to substantially improved (1). GIS assesses the participant's improvement (or worsening) as assessed by the clinician on a 7-point scale: 1: very much improved; 2: much improved; 3: minimally improved; 4: no change; 5: minimally worse; 6: much worse; or 7: very much worse for diarrhea, constipation, stool frequency, stool consistency, urgency, bloating, incomplete evacuation, and straining. Values reported are less than the minimum score on scale as the rate is the proportion of the last four weeks that the participant is a responder.

The IBSQoL is a self-report quality-of-life measure specific to IBS that can be used to assess the impact of IBS and its treatment. The IBSQoL consists of 30 statements about bowel problems, which formed 9 scales: emotional health, mental health, health belief, sleep, energy, physical functioning, diet, social role, physical role and sexual relation. All 9 scales were rated on a five-point response scale ranging from 1 (always) to 5 (never). Scores for individual items were averaged to obtain a total score for each subscale of IBSQoL. Then transformed to a 0-100 scale for ease of interpretation with higher scores indicating better IBS-specific quality of life. Transformed scale score = (raw score - lowest possible scale score)/ (scale range) X 100. The data presented for individual scale.

Number of participants with improvements in pain and discomfort on GIS were presented. GIS assesses the participant's improvement (or worsening) as assessed by the clinician on a 7-point scale: 1: very much improved; 2: much improved; 3: minimally improved; 4: no change; 5: minimally worse; 6: much worse; or 7: very much worse on specified time points. Responder = Yes if A responder answered either 'moderately improved' or 'substantially improved'.

Pain severity scores from the 11-point scale and it's corresponding change from Baseline scores was summarized by treatment group for the last 4 weeks (i.e. weeks 3-6 and Weeks 12-15) of treatment period. Scale from 0 to 10, 0 meaning no pain, 10 worst possible pain. Lower values represent a better outcome. Day 1 was considered as Baseline. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting baseline value from specified time point value. Reported data values are lesser than minimum score on scale as change from Baseline is reported.

Abdominal pain free days are those days where the participant reported a score of '0' for abdominal pain at its worst. Abdominal Pain (in the last 24 hours) is based on an 11-point scale where 0 represents no abdominal pain and 10 represents very severe abdominal pain.

The GIS comprised of ten questions, all rated on a seven point scale ranging from substantially worse (7) to substantially improved (1). GIS assesses the participant's improvement (or worsening) as assessed by the clinician on a 7-point scale: 1: very much improved; 2: much improved; 3: minimally improved; 4: no change; 5: minimally worse; 6: much worse; or 7: very much worse. Number of participants who showed improvement and changes on the scale were presented. Participants were counted as "Yes" if they scored 1-3, and as "No" if they scored 4-7.

For Week 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 visits blood samples were collected at: pre-dose (after the pre ECG measurement and just before am dose) and immediately following the 1-3 hour post-dose ECG measurement and concentration of GW876008 was analyzed. Data for Week 3 and 6 was presented.

Investigation of possible composite symptom score was planned. The data was not collected for composite symptom score.

The PHQ-15 comprised of 15 somatic symptoms from the PHQ, each symptom scored from 0 to 2, where 0 ("Not bothered at all"), 1 (Bothered a little) 2 ("bothered a lot"). This questionnaire was completed at screening, and all study visits. Total score range was 0-30, where 0 indicated Not bothered at all and 30 indicated "bothered a lot". Higher score indicated greater severity of somatization symptoms.

HAD Scale was used to assess the severity of symptoms of anxiety and depression in participants. There were 14 questions. Seven questions related to depression and seven questions related to anxiety. Participants rated the severity of symptoms in the answer to each question. There were four options in each answer, from which participants had to select one. Responses were scored on a scale of 0, 1, 2 or 3, where 0 indicated best and 3 indicated worse. Total score ranged from 0-42 where 0 indicated absence of symptoms and higher scores indicated higher anxiety/depression complains. This questionnaire was completed at screening, and all study visits.