Study Stopped
The trial was early terminated after it was concluded that there was no added benefit from exposing further participants after an unblinded interim analysis.
A Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of 7 Days Treatment With a Novel Analgesic in Subjects With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain
Evaluation of the Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of 7 Days of Treatment With GRT6010 or Pregabalin in Comparison to Placebo in Subjects With Peripheral Neuropathic Pain.
2 other identifiers
interventional
114
4 countries
12
Brief Summary
The purpose of this trial is to determine whether a novel analgesic is effective in treating of neuropathic pain caused by herpetic infection, surgery, or trauma.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P50-P75 for phase_2
Started Feb 2012
Shorter than P25 for phase_2
12 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
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
October 5, 2011
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
December 5, 2011
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
February 1, 2012
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
January 1, 2013
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
January 1, 2013
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
October 2, 2014
CompletedOctober 28, 2019
October 1, 2019
11 months
October 5, 2011
September 16, 2014
October 14, 2019
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (2)
Difference Between Baseline and End-of-double-blind Treatment Ongoing Pain Intensity Scores
The baseline pain intensity score was calculated as a mean of pain intensity scores during the Baseline Period (from Day -3 to Day -1). The ongoing pain intensity data from Day-3 to Day 7 was used. For the analysis, only pain scores on days where participants received study drug were considered. The primary efficacy analysis of the ongoing pain intensity score were analyzed in a Bayesian framework, via a mono exponential decay model, with the baseline Numeric Rating Score (NRS) as intercept. Considering the inclusion criteria of baseline pain intensity being in the range from 4 to 9, the range in ongoing pain intensity difference between baseline and end-of-double-blind treatment can be from 6 (worst possible value) to -9 (best possible value). A negative value indicates improvement whilst on the treatment.
Baseline; Day 7 (end of double blind treatment)
The Difference Between Baseline and End-of-double-blind Treatment Brush-evoked Pain Intensity Scores
The difference between baseline and end-of-double-blind treatment brush-evoked pain intensity scores compared to placebo on a 0-100 point NRS (measured as part of the dynamic mechanical allodynia assessments). Each participant rated each brush-evoked pain intensity on a 0 to 100 point Numerical Pain Rating Scale, with 0 indicating 'No Pain' and 100 indicating 'most intense pain imaginable'. Lower values compared to an individual subject's baseline are an improvement in symptoms. The baseline brush-evoked pain intensity score was defined as the average of the geometric mean of all of the values obtained on Day -2 and Day -1, and compared with the scores obtained on day 6 and 7. For the analysis, only pain scores on days where participants received study drug were considered. A negative change indicates a decrease in brush-evoked pain intensity from baseline.
Baseline and day 7 (end of double blind treatment)
Secondary Outcomes (10)
Assessment of Responder Rates
Day 7 (end of double blind treatment)
Onset of Current Pain Relief
Day 1 to Day 7 (end of double blind treatment)
Onset of Ongoing Pain Relief
Day 1 to Day 7 (end of double blind treatment)
Change in Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory Scores on Day 7 From Baseline (Day -1)
Day -1; Day 7 (end of double blind treatment)
Difference in Patient's Global Impression of Change
Day 7 (end of double blind treatment)
- +5 more secondary outcomes
Study Arms (3)
Matching placebo
PLACEBO COMPARATOROral administration. Pain not sufficiently controlled may be treated with acetaminophen.
GRT6010
EXPERIMENTALOral administration. Pain not sufficiently controlled may be treated with acetaminophen.
Pregabalin
ACTIVE COMPARATOROral administration. Pain not sufficiently controlled may be treated with acetaminophen.
Interventions
Over-encapsulated pregabalin capsules 75mg twice daily on Days 1 to 3, and 150mg twice daily on Days 4 to 7.
Matching Placebo capsules to the over-encapsulated Pregabalin capsules and Matching Placebo oral solution to the GRT6010 solution. Capsules twice daily on Days 1 to 7. Solution once daily.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Age 18 years to 75 years
- Presence of persistent neuropathic pain for at least 6 months at the time of the Enrollment Visit. Allowed reasons for neuropathic pain are: modified radical mastectomy, breast conserving surgery, or cosmetic breast surgery. \[Germany: subjects after cosmetic breast surgery may not be enrolled.\]
- Presence of "probable" or "definite" neuropathic pain.
- Presence of dynamic mechanical allodynia on the affected side, or alternatively, the mechanical pain sensitivity for any of the pinprick stimuli is higher on the affected compared to the contralateral side.
- At either Visit 5 or Visit 6: Presence of an average evoked pain intensity score of \>20 on the 0 100 point numeric rating scale (NRS) for at least 1 of the 3 clinical sub-tests for dynamic mechanical allodynia (i.e., standardized brush, cotton wool tip or cotton wisp). The average will be calculated as the arithmetic mean of all measurements per sub test. Alternatively, the arithmetic mean of the 5 test replicates for any of the pinprick stimuli for mechanical pain sensitivity is at least 3 times higher for the affected side compared to the contralateral side.
- Presence of an average ongoing pain intensity score of \>4 to \<9 on the 0-10 point numerical rating scale (NRS) without the use of rescue medication within the 3 day Baseline pain intensity evaluation Period with at least 7 of 9 assessments being present.
- Dissatisfaction with the current treatment (i.e., lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects) if taking an opioid or non opioid analgesic medication for the painful neuropathy before enrollment.
You may not qualify if:
- Any kind of hepatic impairment at Visit 1 or at Visit 3.
- Either active hepatitis within the past 3 months or presence of chronic hepatitis irrespective of its activity status.
- Estimated creatinine clearance of less than 60 mL/minute x 1.73 m2 at either Visit 1 or at Visit 3.
- Clinically relevant cardiac disease (e.g., unstable angina pectoris, angina pectoris Canadian Cardiovascular Society \[CCS\] Grade III to IV, acute myocardial infarction within the last 3 months, cardiac insufficiency New York Heart Association \[NYHA\] Class III to IV).
- Electrocardiogram (ECG) with clinically relevant findings at either Visit 1 or at Visit 3, including but not limited to repeated prolongation of QTc \> 450 ms (Fridericia correction), or a history of additional risk factors for torsade de pointes (e.g., family history of Long QT Syndrome).
- Clinically relevant pulmonary disease (e.g., Medical Research Council breathlessness scale of 2 or above).
- Specific antitumor therapy within the last 6 months, e.g., adjuvant radiotherapy or chemotherapy, biologics, or angiogenesis inhibitors.
- CYP2D6 poor metabolizer phenotype as predicted by CYP2D6 genotyping.
- Presence of confounding pain conditions (e.g., ulnar nerve entrapment, radial nerve injury associated with major soft-tissue or bone damage, cervico-thoracic radiculopathy, carpal tunnel syndrome, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, or complex regional pain syndrome type I or type II).
- Phantom breast or phantom limb pain.
- Presence of exclusively negative symptoms of neuropathic pain (e.g., hypoesthesia or total anesthesia) in the affected area.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Grünenthal GmbHlead
Study Sites (12)
DEU001
Mainz, D-55131, Germany
DEU002
Regensburg, D-93053, Germany
HUN004
Esztergom, H-2500, Hungary
HUN003
Győr, H-9024, Hungary
HUN001
Miskolc, H-3526, Hungary
HUN008
Szikszó, H-3800, Hungary
POL002
Gdansk, 80-214, Poland
POL004
Lublin, 20-718, Poland
POL005
Warsaw, 02-106, Poland
GBR003
Belfast, BT2 7BA, United Kingdom
GBR001
Glasgow, G11 6NT, United Kingdom
GBR002
Manchester, M32 0UT, United Kingdom
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Director of Clinical Trials
- Organization
- Grünenthal GmbH
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
Director Clinical Trials
Grünenthal GmbH
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restriction Type
- OTHER
- Restrictive Agreement
- Yes
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 2
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- QUADRUPLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT, CARE PROVIDER, INVESTIGATOR, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- INDUSTRY
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
October 5, 2011
First Posted
December 5, 2011
Study Start
February 1, 2012
Primary Completion
January 1, 2013
Study Completion
January 1, 2013
Last Updated
October 28, 2019
Results First Posted
October 2, 2014
Record last verified: 2019-10