Evaluation of a Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST) in Subjects Receiving Niacin Extended-release Plus Aspirin
A Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel, Multicenter, Placebo-controlled, Prospective Study to Evaluate the Functionality of the Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST) in Subjects Administered Niaspan® Plus Acetylsalicylic Acid (ASA), Niaspan® Plus ASA Placebo or Niaspan® Placebo Plus ASA Placebo Daily for Six Weeks
1 other identifier
interventional
276
1 country
40
Brief Summary
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric characteristics (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of a Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST) in subjects receiving niacin extended-release (NER) plus aspirin (ASA) daily for 6 weeks. The FAST is a questionnaire that was developed to provide a detailed assessment of flushing symptoms and their impact in patients receiving niacin therapy. The effect of aspirin on flushing symptoms, as measured by the FAST, was also evaluated.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P50-P75 for phase_3
Started Feb 2008
Shorter than P25 for phase_3
40 active sites
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
February 1, 2008
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
February 29, 2008
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
March 7, 2008
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
June 1, 2008
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
June 1, 2008
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
October 9, 2009
CompletedOctober 9, 2009
September 1, 2009
4 months
February 29, 2008
June 11, 2009
September 9, 2009
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (8)
Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST) Test-retest Reliability--mean Flushing Severity Score
Test-retest reliability of the mean flushing severity score was evaluated. The intraclass correlation coefficient comparing flushing severity scores for Week 1 and Week 2 was examined to determine test-retest reliability. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe.
Week 1 to Week 2
FAST Test-retest Reliability--maximum Flushing Severity Score
Test-retest reliability of the maximum flushing severity score was evaluated. The intraclass correlation coefficient comparing flushing severity scores for Week 1 and Week 2 was examined to determine test-retest reliability. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe.
Week 1 to Week 2
FAST Cross-sectional Construct Validity--mean Flushing Severity Score
The relationship between mean flushing severity and overall flushing troublesomeness was evaluated by examining the Spearman rank-order correlation. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. Overall flushing troublesomeness was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most troublesome.
Week 1
FAST Cross-sectional Construct Validity--maximum Flushing Severity Score
The relationship between maximum flushing severity and overall flushing troublesomeness was evaluated by examining the Spearman rank-order correlation. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. Overall flushing troublesomeness was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most troublesome.
Week 1
FAST Longitudinal Construct Validity--mean Flushing Severity Score
The relationship between the change in mean flushing severity scores from Week 1 to Week 2, and the subject-rated overall treatment effect scale administered at Week 2, was assessed by examining the Spearman rank-order correlation. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. The overall treatment effect was assessed on a scale of 1 (symptoms are worse since study start), 2 (symptoms are about the same since study start), or 3 (symptoms are better since study start).
Week 1 to Week 2
FAST Longitudinal Construct Validity--maximum Flushing Severity Score
The relationship between the change in maximum flushing severity scores from Week 1 to Week 2, and the subject-rated overall treatment effect scale administered at Week 2, was assessed by examining the Spearman rank-order correlation. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. The overall treatment effect was assessed on a scale of 1 (symptoms are worse since study start), 2 (symptoms are about the same since study start), or 3 (symptoms are better since study start).
Week 1 to Week 2
FAST Responsiveness--mean Flushing Severity Score
The change in mean flushing severity scores from study start to Day 43 was compared in subjects classified as responders vs. nonresponders. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. Changes in mean flushing severity scores were negative if flushing symptoms improved and positive if flushing symptoms worsened.
Study start to Day 43
FAST Responsiveness--maximum Flushing Severity Score
The change in maximum flushing severity scores from study start to Day 43 was compared in subjects classified as responders vs. nonresponders. Flushing severity was assessed using the FAST on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. Changes in maximum flushing severity scores were negative if flushing symptoms improved and positive if flushing symptoms worsened.
Study start to Day 43
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Maximum Severity of Flushing Events Overall During the Study
Week 1 to Week 6
Study Arms (3)
NER/ASA
EXPERIMENTALNER/ASA Placebo
EXPERIMENTALNER Placebo/ASA Placebo
EXPERIMENTALInterventions
Tablets administered once daily for 6 weeks; titrated to a maximum dose of 2000 mg
Tablets administered once daily for 6 weeks
Tablets (325 mg) administered once daily for 6 weeks
Tablets administered once daily for 6 weeks
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Subject must be 18 years of age or older.
- If female, subject is either not of childbearing potential, defined as postmenopausal for at least one year or surgically sterile, or is of childbearing potential and must agree to practice birth control for the duration of the study.
- Have dyslipidemia as demonstrated by laboratory results.
You may not qualify if:
- Have glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) \>= 9.0%.
- Have nephrotic syndrome, dysproteinemias, or severe renal failure (glomerular filtration rate \[GFR\] \< 30 mL/minute, as calculated from creatinine clearance).
- Have had unstable angina or an acute myocardial infarction (MI) within three months of the Screening Visit.
- Have had severe peripheral artery disease as evidenced by intermittent claudication within three months of the Screening Visit.
- Have had uncontrolled cardiac arrhythmias within three months of the Screening Visit.
- Have a systolic blood pressure measurement of \> 180 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure measurement of \> 110 mmHg at the Screening or Baseline Visit
- Have active gout or uric acid \>= 11 mg/dL.
- Have a history of hepatitis (acute or chronic), obstructive liver disease, or alanine aminotransferase (ALT; serum glutamic pyruvic transaminase \[SGPT\]) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST; serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase \[SGOT\]) values \>= 1.3 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) at the Screening Visit.
- Have creatine phosphokinase (CPK) \>= 3 x ULN at the Screening Visit.
- Have used an investigational study drug or participated in an investigational study within 30 days of the Screening Visit.
- Have a health condition or laboratory abnormality (inclusive of clinically significant laboratory results at Screening Visit), which, in the opinion of the Investigator, may be adversely affected by the procedures or study medications in this study.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Abbottlead
Study Sites (40)
Unknown Facility
Birmingham, Alabama, 35209, United States
Unknown Facility
Anaheim, California, 92801, United States
Unknown Facility
Walnut Creek, California, 94598, United States
Unknown Facility
Denver, Colorado, 80212, United States
Unknown Facility
Brooksville, Florida, 34613, United States
Unknown Facility
Daytona Beach, Florida, 32127, United States
Unknown Facility
Hollywood, Florida, 33023, United States
Unknown Facility
Jacksonville, Florida, 32216, United States
Unknown Facility
Largo, Florida, 33770, United States
Unknown Facility
Miami, Florida, 33126, United States
Unknown Facility
Pembroke Pines, Florida, 33026, United States
Unknown Facility
Boise, Idaho, 83704, United States
Unknown Facility
Chicago, Illinois, 60610, United States
Unknown Facility
Arkansas City, Kansas, 67005, United States
Unknown Facility
Topeka, Kansas, 66608, United States
Unknown Facility
Wichita, Kansas, 67203, United States
Unknown Facility
Wichita, Kansas, 67207, United States
Unknown Facility
St Louis, Missouri, 63141, United States
Unknown Facility
Las Vegas, Nevada, 89146, United States
Unknown Facility
Durham, North Carolina, 27704, United States
Unknown Facility
High Point, North Carolina, 27262, United States
Unknown Facility
Salisbury, North Carolina, 28144, United States
Unknown Facility
Statesville, North Carolina, 28677, United States
Unknown Facility
Cincinnati, Ohio, 45242, United States
Unknown Facility
Portland, Oregon, 97239, United States
Unknown Facility
Duncansville, Pennsylvania, 16635, United States
Unknown Facility
Harleysville, Pennsylvania, 19438, United States
Unknown Facility
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15206, United States
Unknown Facility
Greer, South Carolina, 29651, United States
Unknown Facility
Austin, Texas, 78752, United States
Unknown Facility
Carrollton, Texas, 75006, United States
Unknown Facility
Dallas, Texas, 75251, United States
Unknown Facility
San Antonio, Texas, 78217, United States
Unknown Facility
San Antonio, Texas, 78224, United States
Unknown Facility
Magna, Utah, 84044, United States
Unknown Facility
Murray, Utah, 84107, United States
Unknown Facility
Sandy City, Utah, 84094, United States
Unknown Facility
Gig Harbor, Washington, 98335, United States
Unknown Facility
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, 53051, United States
Unknown Facility
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53209, United States
Related Publications (1)
Kawata AK, Revicki DA, Thakkar R, Jiang P, Krause S, Davidson MH, Punzi HA, Padley RJ. Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST): psychometric properties of a new measure assessing flushing symptoms and clinical impact of niacin therapy. Clin Drug Investig. 2009;29(4):215-29. doi: 10.2165/00044011-200929040-00001.
PMID: 19301936RESULT
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Medical Information Specialist
- Organization
- Abbott
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
Roopal Thakkar, MD
Abbott
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restriction Type
- OTHER
- Restrictive Agreement
- Yes
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 3
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- QUADRUPLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT, CARE PROVIDER, INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- INDUSTRY
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
February 29, 2008
First Posted
March 7, 2008
Study Start
February 1, 2008
Primary Completion
June 1, 2008
Study Completion
June 1, 2008
Last Updated
October 9, 2009
Results First Posted
October 9, 2009
Record last verified: 2009-09