Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00683800

Study Evaluating The Safety And Efficacy Of Desvenlafaxine Succinate For Vasomotor Symptoms In Menopausal Women

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Desvenlafaxine Succinate (DVS) Sustained Release (SR), in comparison to placebo for the treatment of Vasomotor Symptoms (VMS) in menopausal women.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

45 year and older

Sex eligibility

Female

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 3

Primary location

Pfizer Investigational Site, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Loading trial locations.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Generally healthy, postmenopausal women who seek treatment for hot flushes
  • Body Mass Index (BMI) less than or equal to 34 kg/m^2

Exclusion criteria

  • Hypersensitivity to Venlafaxine
  • Myocardial infarction an/or unstable angina within 6 months of screening
  • History of seizure disorder

Treatment and study plan

desvenlafaxine succinate (DVS) SR

Drug

Titration with 50 mg tablets once daily for 7 days, then 100mg tablets once daily from day 8 to day 365, then taper with 50 mg tablets once daily for 7 days, followed by 25 mg tablets once daily for 7 days.

Placebo

Drug

Titration with 50 mg placebo tablets once daily for 7 days, then 100mg placebo tablets once daily from day 8 to day 365, then taper with 50 mg placebo tablets once daily for 7 days, followed by 25 mg placebo tablets once daily for 7 days.

Primary outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline in the Average Daily Number of Moderate to Severe Hot Flushes at Week 4

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 4

    The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

  2. Change From Baseline in the Average Daily Number of Moderate to Severe Hot Flushes at Week 12

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 12

    The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

  3. Change From Baseline in the Average Daily Severity of Hot Flushes at Week 4

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 4

    Severity ranged from mild (sensation of heat without sweating); moderate (sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity) to severe (sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity). The average daily severity of hot flushes for each time period was calculated as (1*Number of mild+2*Number of moderate+3*Number of severe)/(Total number of hot flushes). For the days with no hot flushes, the severity score was set as 0. As this was derived from the count data, there was no maximum; the minimum score was 0; the higher values showed worse outcomes.

  4. Change From Baseline in the Average Daily Severity of Hot Flushes at Week 12

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 12

    Severity ranged from mild (sensation of heat without sweating); moderate (sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity) to severe (sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity). The average daily severity of hot flushes for each time period was calculated as (1*Number of mild+2*Number of moderate+3*Number of severe)/(Total number of hot flushes). For the days with no hot flushes, the severity score was set as 0. As this was derived from the count data, there was no maximum; the minimum score was 0; the higher values showed worse outcomes.

  5. Number of Participants With All Adjudicated Ischemic Cardiovascular (CV) Events

    Time frame: Baseline up to Month 12

    Adjudicated ischemic cardiovascular events were a composite of: a) Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)-related death; b) New Myocardial Infarction (MI) (non-procedure-related MI); c) Documented new onset of unstable angina requiring hospitalization; d) Unscheduled coronary revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention) or bypass grafting.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants With a Minimal Clinically Meaningful Decrease in the Average Daily Number of Hot Flushes

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 12

    A mean decrease from baseline of at least 5.35 moderate to severe hot flushes at week 12 in the participants was considered clinically meaningful.

  2. Percentage of Participants With at Least 50% Reduction From Baseline in the Number of Moderate and Severe Hot Flushes

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 and Week 12

    The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

  3. Percentage of Participants With at Least 75% Reduction From Baseline in the Number of Moderate and Severe Hot Flushes

    Time frame: Baseline, Week 4 and Week 12

    The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

  4. Median Time to the First Day of 3 Consecutive Days of at Least 50% Reduction in Hot Flushes

    Time frame: Week 12

    Time to response was defined as the time-to-first 50% reduction in the average daily number of moderate to severe hot flushes over 3 consecutive days.

  5. Change From Baseline in Adjusted Means in the Number of Moderate and Severe Hot Flushes at Month 6 and Month 12

    Time frame: Baseline, Month 6 and Month 12

    The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity. Adjusted mean was calculated by using change from baseline as response variable, treatment as factor, and baseline as covariate using the observed cases.

  6. Change From Baseline in Adjusted Means in the Hot Flush Severity Score at Month 6 and Month 12

    Time frame: Baseline, Month 6 and Month 12

    Severity: mild (heat sensation without sweating); moderate (heat sensation with sweating; able to continue activity); severe (heat sensation with sweating; causing cessation of activity). Average daily severity of hot flushes= (1*Number of mild+2*Number of moderate+3*Number of severe)/(Total number of hot flushes). Days with no hot flushes: severity score=0. As it was derived from count data, there was no maximum; minimum score=0; higher values= worse outcomes. Adjusted mean: calculated using change from baseline=response variable, treatment=factor and baseline=covariate using observed cases.

  7. Change From Baseline in the Total Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) Score and GCS Subscores at Week 12

    Time frame: Baseline and Week 12

    GCS: a 21 item evaluation of symptoms which asked participants how bothered they were with particular symptom at the moment. Each item was scored as 0 = Not at all, 1 = A little, 2 = Quite a bit, and 3 = Extremely. A total score was derived from the sum of the 21 items (range 0-63). GCS was also used to generate 6 individual scores (psychological symptoms [range 0-33], anxiety [range 0-18], depression [range 0-15], somatic symptoms [range 0-21], vasomotor symptoms [range 0-6], and sexual dysfunction [range 0-3]). A decrease in the total climacteric score indicated an improvement in symptoms.

  8. Change From Baseline in the Total Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) Score and GCS Subscores at Month 6

    Time frame: Baseline and Month 6

    GCS: a 21 item evaluation of symptoms which asked participants how bothered they were with particular symptom at the moment. Each item was scored as 0 = Not at all, 1 = A little, 2 = Quite a bit, and 3 = Extremely. A total score was derived from the sum of the 21 items (range 0-63). GCS was also used to generate 6 individual scores (psychological symptoms [range 0-33], anxiety [range 0-18], depression [range 0-15], somatic symptoms [range 0-21], vasomotor symptoms [range 0-6], and sexual dysfunction [range 0-3]). A decrease in the total climacteric score indicated an improvement in symptoms.

  9. Change From Baseline in the Total Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) Score and GCS Subscores at Month 12

    Time frame: Baseline and Month 12

    GCS: a 21 item evaluation of symptoms which asked participants how bothered they were with particular symptom at the moment. Each item was scored as 0 = Not at all, 1 = A little, 2 = Quite a bit, and 3 = Extremely. A total score was derived from the sum of the 21 items (range 0-63). GCS was also used to generate 6 individual scores (psychological symptoms [range 0-33], anxiety [range 0-18], depression [range 0-15], somatic symptoms [range 0-21], vasomotor symptoms [range 0-6], and sexual dysfunction [range 0-3]). A decrease in the total climacteric score indicated an improvement in symptoms.

  10. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Symptom Rating (PGI-R) for Main Study Efficacy Population at Week 12

    Time frame: Week 12

    PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

  11. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Symptom Rating (PGI-R) for Main Study Efficacy Population at Month 6

    Time frame: Month 6

    PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

  12. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Symptom Rating (PGI-R) for Main Study Efficacy Population at Month 12

    Time frame: Month 12

    PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

  13. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Symptom Rating (PGI-R) for MITT Population of Efficacy Substudy at Week 12

    Time frame: Week 12

    PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

  14. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Symptom Rating (PGI-R) for MITT Population of Efficacy Substudy at Month 6

    Time frame: Month 6

    PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

  15. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Symptom Rating (PGI-R) for MITT Population of Efficacy Substudy at Month 12

    Time frame: Month 12

    PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

  16. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Change (PGI-C) for Main Study Efficacy Population at Week 12

    Time frame: Week 12

    PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

  17. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Change (PGI-C) for Main Study Efficacy Population at Month 6

    Time frame: Month 6

    PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

  18. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores Based on Patient Global Impression Change (PGI-C) for Main Study Efficacy Population at Month 12

    Time frame: Month 12

    PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

  19. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Change (PGI-C) for MITT Population of Efficacy Substudy at Week 12

    Time frame: Week 12

    PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

  20. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores on Patient Global Impression Change (PGI-C) for MITT Population of Efficacy Substudy at Month 6

    Time frame: Month 6

    PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

  21. Percentage of Participants With Categorical Scores Based on Patient Global Impression Change (PGI-C) for MITT Population of Efficacy Substudy at Month 12

    Time frame: Month 12

    PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

Other outcomes

  1. Number of Participants With Adjudicated Cerebrovascular Events - Any Stroke

    Time frame: Baseline up to Month 12

    Adjudicated cerebrovascular events were identified using Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ), for "central nervous system haemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions". Primary assessments included: 1) definite stroke, 2) probable stroke, 3) probable transient ischemic attack (TIA), and 4) no stroke or TIA.

  2. Number of Participants With Adjudicated Cerebrovascular Events - Probable TIA

    Time frame: Baseline up to Month 12

    Adjudicated cerebrovascular events were identified using Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ), for "central nervous system haemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions". Primary assessments included: 1) definite stroke, 2) probable stroke, 3) probable transient ischemic attack (TIA), and 4) no stroke or TIA.

  3. Number of Participants With Ischemic Heart Disease

    Time frame: Baseline up to Month 12

    Potential ischaemic cardiac events were identified using the Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) "Ischemic Heart Disease".

  4. Number of Participants With Hepatic Events

    Time frame: Baseline up to Month 12

    Hepatic events were defined as incidence of increased Liver Function Test (AST [aspartate aminotransferase] or ALT [alanine aminotransferase]) levels greater than 5 times the ULN (upper limit of normal).

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Pfizer

Industry

Registry information

Official study title

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study Assessing The Safety And Efficacy Of DVS SR For The Treatment Of Vasomotor Symptoms Associated With Menopause

Important dates

Study start
2008
Primary completion
2010
Study completion
2010
First posted
May 23, 2008
Registry last updated
Aug 17, 2011

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.