AzTrials
AzTrials

Cystitis, InterstitialPhase 2NCT00601484

An Effectiveness and Safety Study of PF-04383119 for the Treatment of Pain in Interstitial Cystitis

A Phase 2 study testing PF-04383119 in people with Cystitis, Interstitial, run by Pfizer at 34 sites in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether PF-04383119 is effective in the treatment of pain associated with interstitial cystitis. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Cystitis, Interstitial
What is being tested?
PF-04383119
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
65 participants
Where
34 sitesUnited States
Study dates
17 Mar 2008to 15 Apr 2009
Phase
Phase 2
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Male and female adults at least 18 years of age;
  • Moderate to severe interstitial cystitis, with a mean pain intensity score above a pre-defined level.

Who cannot join

  • Less than 6 months since onset of interstitial cystitis symptoms;
  • History of recurrent urinary tract infections, or genitourinary cancer;
  • History of hepatitis B, C or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV);
  • Use of certain drugs given into the bladder up to 1 month prior to study entry.

Trial locations and contacts

34 sites in 1 country.

34 sites in 1 country

United States34 sites
  • Atlanta Center for Medical Research

    Atlanta, Georgia, 30308

  • Parkhurst Research Organization, LLC

    Bethany, Oklahoma, 73008

  • Boulder Medical Center

    Boulder, Colorado, 80304

  • Tri-State Urologic Services PSC, Inc. dba The Urology Group

    Cincinnati, Ohio, 45212

  • Urology Associates of Central California

    Fresno, California, 93710

  • Citrus Valley Medical Research Inc.

    Glendora, California, 91741

  • Alliance Urology Specialists, PA

    Greensboro, North Carolina, 27403

  • Matrix Research, LLC (Administrative Only)

    Greer, South Carolina, 29650

  • The Urology Group

    Greer, South Carolina, 29650

  • Hartford Hospital, Urogynecology Division

    Hartford, Connecticut, 06106

  • Hartford Hospital

    Hartford, Connecticut, 06106

  • Mobley Research Center

    Houston, Texas, 77024

  • Metropolitan Urology

    Jeffersonville, Indiana, 47130

  • The Connecticut Clinical Research Center, Urology Specialists PC

    Middlebury, Connecticut, 06762

  • Waterbury Neurology

    Middlebury, Connecticut, 06762

  • Integrity Medical Research, LLC

    Mountlake Terrace, Washington, 98043

  • Connecticut Urological Research at Grove Hill

    New Britain, Connecticut, 06052

  • The Arthur Smith Institute for Urology

    New Hyde Park, New York, 11040

  • Coastal Connecticut Research, LLC

    New London, Connecticut, 06320

  • Timothy M. Barczak, MD, LLC

    New London, Connecticut, 06320

  • Quality Clinical Research Inc

    Omaha, Nebraska, 68114

  • Chesapeake Urology Research Associates

    Owings Mills, Maryland, 21117

  • Pivotal Research Center

    Peoria, Arizona, 85381

  • Triangle Urological Associates

    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15212

  • University of Rochester Medical Center

    Rochester, New York, 14642

  • William Beaumont Hospital

    Royal Oak, Michigan, 48073

  • SD Uro-Research

    San Diego, California, 92103

  • Regional Urology, LLC

    Shreveport, Louisiana, 71106

  • Northside Internal Medicine

    Spokane, Washington, 99208

  • Barnes Jewish West County Hospital

    St Louis, Missouri, 63141

  • Washington University, Division of Urologic Surgery

    St Louis, Missouri, 63141

  • Washington University

    St Louis, Missouri, 63141

  • Michigan Institute of Urology

    Troy, Michigan, 48084

  • Michigan Institute of Urology

    Utica, Michigan, 48313

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A PHASE 2, 16 WEEK, MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE BLIND PLACEBO CONTROLLED, PARALLEL GROUP PROOF OF CONCEPT STUDY EVALUATING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PF-04383119 FOR THE TREATMENT OF PAIN ASSOCIATED WITH INTERSTITIAL CYSTITIS

The purpose of this study is to determine whether PF-04383119 is effective in the treatment of pain associated with interstitial cystitis.

Being tested
PF-04383119, Placebo
Keywords
Painful Bladder Syndrome, monoclonal antibody
Medical subject headings
Cystitis, Interstitial

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • PF-04383119Drug

    PF-04383119 200 mcg/kg IV, single dose

  • PlaceboDrug

    placebo IV, single dose

Study groups in NCT00601484
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
1ExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: PF-04383119
2Placebo comparatorNot described
Receives: Drug: Placebo

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change From Baseline in Average Daily Pain Score at Week 6

    Participants assessed their average interstitial cystitis pain intensity during the last 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no interstitial cystitis pain) to 10 (worst possible interstitial cystitis pain); where higher scores indicated higher pain. The average daily pain score was calculated as the mean of the scores over the last 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Here, 'Number analyzed' = participants with available data for each specified category.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 6

Secondary outcomes (45)
  1. Change From Baseline in Average Daily Pain Score at Week 2, 4, 10 and 16

    Participants assessed their average interstitial cystitis pain intensity during the last 24 hours on an 11-point NRS ranging from 0 (no interstitial cystitis pain) to 10 (worst possible interstitial cystitis pain); where higher scores indicated higher pain. The average daily pain score was calculated as the mean of the scores over the last 7 days prior to each assessment time point.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 10, 16

  2. Percent Change From Baseline in Average Daily Pain Score at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    Participants assessed their average interstitial cystitis pain intensity during the last 24 hours on an 11-point NRS ranging from 0 (no interstitial cystitis pain) to 10 (worst possible interstitial cystitis pain); where higher scores indicated higher pain. The average daily pain score was calculated as the mean of the scores over the last 7 days prior to each assessment time point.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  3. Change From Baseline in O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI) Score at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The ICSI contained 4 questions that measured symptom severity including urinary urgency, urinary frequency, nocturia and pain/burning/discomfort/pressure in the bladder. Each question in the ICSI was rated on a 0 (no symptoms) to 5 (severe symptoms) scale, with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. The sum of the individual question ratings was the total score for the ICSI. Total score ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 20 (severe symptoms), with higher score indicating greater symptom severity.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  4. Percent Change From Baseline in O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI) Score at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The ICSI contained 4 questions that measured symptom severity including urinary urgency, urinary frequency, nocturia and pain/burning/discomfort/pressure in the bladder. Each question in the ICSI was rated on a 0 (no symptoms) to 5 (severe symptoms) scale, with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. The sum of the individual question ratings was the total score for the ICSI. Total score ranged from 0 (no symptoms) to 20 (severe symptoms), with higher score indicating greater symptom severity.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  5. Change From Baseline in Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The micturition frequency per 24 hours was calculated from the sum of voluntary voids divided by the number of diary days over which they were collected.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  6. Percent Change From Baseline in Number of Micturitions Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The micturition frequency per 24 hours was calculated from the sum of voluntary voids divided by the number of diary days over which they were collected.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  7. Change From Baseline in Number of Nocturnal Micturitions Per Night at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The nocturnal frequency per night was calculated as the sum of voluntary voids that occurred during a night's sleep, divided by the number of nights over which this was collected.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  8. Percent Change From Baseline in Number of Nocturnal Micturitions Per Night at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The nocturnal frequency per night was calculated as the sum of voluntary voids that occurred during a night's sleep, divided by the number of nights over which this was collected. Percent change from baseline was calculated for participants who reported greater than 0 episodes at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  9. Change From Baseline in Number of Incontinence Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The incontinence episode frequency per 24 hours was calculated as the sum of any incontinence episodes occurring during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of days over which they were recorded.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  10. Percent Change From Baseline in Number of Incontinence Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The incontinence episode frequency per 24 hours was calculated as the sum of any incontinence episodes occurring during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of days over which they were recorded. Percent change from baseline was calculated for participants who reported greater than 0 episodes at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  11. Change From Baseline in Mean Voided Volume Per Micturition at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    Mean voided volume per micturition was calculated as the total urine volume voided (resulting from a toilet [voluntary] void) during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of toilet voids over which this occurred.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  12. Percent Change From Baseline in Mean Voided Volume Per Micturition at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    Mean voided volume per micturition was calculated as the total urine volume voided (resulting from a toilet [voluntary] void) during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of toilet voids over which this occurred.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  13. Change From Baseline in Mean Interstitial Cystitis Pain Severity Per Urinary Event at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    Mean interstitial cystitis pain severity per urinary event (toilet void, accidental urine loss, urgency episode) was calculated as the mean of all pain severities recorded during the diary period when these events were measured. For each urinary event (toilet void, accidental urine loss, urgency episode), participants marked their associated level of pain intensity (or pressure, aching, burning, discomfort) using an 11-point NRS ranging from 0 denoting none (no pain), and 10 denoting worst (pain as bad as you can imagine), where higher scores indicated higher pain. Total mean interstitial cystitis pain severity per urinary event score ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 worst (pain as bad as you can imagine), where higher scores indicated more pain.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  14. Percent Change From Baseline in Mean Interstitial Cystitis Pain Severity Per Urinary Event at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    Mean interstitial cystitis pain severity per urinary event (toilet void, accidental urine loss, urgency episode) was calculated as the mean of all pain severities recorded during the diary period when these events were measured. For each urinary event (toilet void, accidental urine loss, urgency episode), participants marked their associated level of pain intensity (or pressure, aching, burning, discomfort) using an 11-point NRS ranging from 0 denoting none (no pain), and 10 denoting worst (pain as bad as you can imagine), where higher scores indicated higher pain. Total mean interstitial cystitis pain severity per urinary event score ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 worst (pain as bad as you can imagine), where higher scores indicated more pain.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  15. Change From Baseline in Urinary Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The urinary urgency episode per 24 hours was calculated as the sum of any urgency episodes occurring during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of days over which they were recorded.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  16. Percent Change From Baseline in Urinary Urgency Episodes Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The urinary urgency episode per 24 hours was calculated as the sum of any urgency episodes occurring during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of days over which they were recorded. Percent change from baseline was calculated for participants who reported greater than 0 episodes at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  17. Change From Baseline in Average Sleep Disturbance Score Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    Average sleep disturbance score was calculated from the sleep disturbance experienced over the previous night. The average sleep disturbance score per night was determined from calculating the mean of all sleep disturbance scores in the 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Participants answered the following question: "Over the past 24 hours, how much did the symptoms that you associate with your interstitial cystitis disturb your sleep?" Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely); where higher scores indicated more sleep disturbance.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  18. Percent Change From Baseline in Average Sleep Disturbance Score Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    Average sleep disturbance score was calculated from the sleep disturbance experienced over the previous night. The average sleep disturbance score per night was determined from calculating the mean of all sleep disturbance scores in the 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Participants answered the following question: "Over the past 24 hours, how much did the symptoms that you associate with your interstitial cystitis disturb your sleep?" Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely); where higher scores indicated more sleep disturbance. Percent change from baseline was calculated for participants who reported greater than 0 score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  19. Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score Associated With Sexual Activity Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The average pain score associated with sexual activity was determined from calculating the mean of sexual activity scores of 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Participants answered the following question: "Over the past 24 hours, how much pain did you experience during or after sexual activity?" Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 4 (extremely painful); where higher scores indicated higher pain.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  20. Percent Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score Associated With Sexual Activity Per 24 Hours at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The average pain score associated with sexual activity was determined from calculating the mean of sexual activity scores in the 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Participants answered the following question: "Over the past 24 hours, how much pain did you experience during or after sexual activity?" Participants responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 4 (extremely painful); where higher scores indicated higher pain. Percent change from baseline was calculated for participants who reported greater than 0 score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  21. Change From Baseline in Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency (PUF) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The pelvic pain and urgency/frequency (PUF) was a 12-item questionnaire used to measure the severity of symptoms and the degree to which participants were bothered. Symptom questions include 3, 4, or 5 ranked answers, with higher answers indicating more voids, or greater frequency of pain. The bother questions consisted of 4 ranked answers from 0-never to 3-always with higher answers indicating more bothering. Total score was calculated as the sum of symptom score and bother score and ranged from 0 (no symptoms/bother) to 35 (higher symptom severity/bother), where a higher score indicated greater symptom severity and higher bother from pelvic pain and frequency.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  22. Percent Change From Baseline in Pelvic Pain and Urgency/Frequency (PUF) Symptom Total Score at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The pelvic pain and urgency/frequency (PUF) was a 12-item questionnaire used to measure the severity of symptoms and the degree to which participants were bothered. Symptom questions include 3, 4, or 5 ranked answers, with higher answers indicating more voids, or greater frequency of pain. The bother questions each of 4 ranked answers from 0-never, to 3-always with higher answers indicating more bothering. Total score was calculated as the sum of symptom score and bother score and ranged from 0 (no symptoms/bother) to 35 (higher symptom severity/bother), where a higher score indicated greater symptom severity and higher bother from pelvic pain and frequency.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  23. Change From Baseline in O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI) Score at Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The ICPI contained 4 questions that measured how problematic the symptoms (urinary urgency, urinary frequency, nocturnal and pain/burning/discomfort/pressure in the bladder) were for the participant. Each question in the ICPI was rated on a 0-4 scale, where 0= no problem and 4= big problem. The sum of the individual question ratings was the total score for the ICPI. Total score ranged from 0 (no problem) to 16 (big problem), with higher score indicating greater problematic symptom.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  24. Percent Change From Baseline in O'Leary-Sant Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI) Score Week 2, 4, 6, 10 and 16

    The ICPI contained 4 questions that measured how problematic the symptoms (urinary urgency, urinary frequency, nocturia and pain/burning/discomfort/pressure in the bladder) were for the participant. Each question in the ICPI was rated on a 0-4 scale, where 0= no problem and 4= big problem. The sum of the individual question ratings was the total score for the ICPI. Total score ranged from 0 (no problem) to 16 (big problem), with higher score indicating greater problematic symptom.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  25. Number of Participants With Global Response Assessment (GRA) at Weeks 6, and 16

    Participants were asked the following question: "Compared to when you began this trial, how would you rate your interstitial cystitis symptoms now?" Participants responded on a 7-point symmetric scale where 1 = markedly worse, 2 = moderately worse, 3 = slightly worse, 4 = no change, 5 = slightly improved, 6 = moderately improved and 7 = markedly improved; where higher scores indicated improvement. Participants who responded as 6 (moderately improved) or 7 (markedly improved) were defined as treatment responders. Number of participants with response based on GRA scale for all scale categories were reported in this outcome measure.

    Measured: Week 6, 16

  26. Patient's Global Satisfaction Assessment

    Participant global satisfaction was assessed using Patient Reported Treatment Impact (PRTI) which is a self-administered questionnaire containing 4 items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. Participants were asked the following question: "Overall, how satisfied are you with the drug that you received since you entered this trial?" Participant's response was rated on a 5-point scale where 1=extremely dissatisfied (dissatisfy), 2=dissatisfied, 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (satisfy/dissatisfy), 4=satisfied and 5=extremely satisfied; where higher scores indicated more satisfaction. Number of participants with each response was reported in this outcome measure.

    Measured: Week 6, 16

  27. Patient's Global Preference Assessment at Weeks 6, and 16

    Participant global preference was assessed using PRTI which is self-administered questionnaire containing 4 items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using study medication. Participant reported previous treatment under following categories: lifestyle interventions, physical therapies, toileting programs, drug given into bladder, drug taken by mouth, surgery and no treatment. Participants' preference was assessed using following categories: definitely prefer current drug, slightly prefer current drug, no preference, definitely prefer prior treatment and slightly prefer prior treatment. Number of participants under each of the categories was reported in this outcome measure. For previous treatment, a single participant may be represented in more than 1 category.

    Measured: Week 6, 16

  28. Patient Willingness to Re-use Medicine Assessment

    Participant willingness to re-use study medication was assessed using PRTI which is a self-administered questionnaire containing 4 items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. Participants were asked the following question: "In the future, would you be willing to use the same drug that you have received since you entered this trial for your interstitial cystitis?" Participant willingness to re-use study medication was assessed using following categories: definitely want to re-use, might want to re-use, not sure, might not want to re-use, and definitely would not want to re-use.

    Measured: Week 6, 16

  29. Percentage of Participants Who Use Rescue Medication

    In case of inadequate pain relief or worsening symptoms of interstitial cystitis, any United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved commercial product of acetaminophen 500 milligram (mg) tablet/capsule could be taken as rescue medication.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  30. Ratio of Number of Days Rescue Medication Used

    In case of inadequate pain relief or worsening symptoms of interstitial cystitis, any US FDA approved commercial product of acetaminophen 500 mg tablet/capsule could be taken as rescue medication. Results were normalized by days rescue medication was used relative to the total number of days participant was in the study.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  31. Average Number of Doses Per Day of Rescue Medication Used

    In case of inadequate pain relief or worsening symptoms of interstitial cystitis, any US FDA approved commercial product of acetaminophen 500 mg tablet/capsule could be taken as rescue medication. Results were normalized by doses of rescue medication used relative to the total number of days participant was in the study.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  32. Amount of Rescue Medication Taken Per Day

    In case of inadequate pain relief or worsening symptoms of interstitial cystitis, any US FDA approved commercial product of acetaminophen 500 mg tablet/capsule could be taken as rescue medication. Results were normalized by amount of rescue medication (in mg) relative to the total number of days participant was in the study.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  33. Time to First Dose of Rescue Medication as a Proportion of Total Days in Study

    In case of inadequate pain relief or worsening symptoms of interstitial cystitis, any US FDA approved commercial product of acetaminophen 500 mg tablet/capsule could be taken as rescue medication. Time to first dose of rescue medication was defined as the time (in days) from the first dose of study drug to the time of first dose of rescue medication use. Results were normalized by days (time [in days] to first dose of rescue medication) relative to the total number of days participant was in the study and reported in terms of proportion of total days in study.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  34. Plasma and Urine Total Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) Concentration

    Plasma Total NGF levels were assayed using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. Urine NGF was not analyzed because no reliable assay method was available for assessing urine NGF.

    Measured: Day 1 (1 hour pre-dose), Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  35. Heparin-binding Epidermal Growth Factor-like Growth Factor (HB-EGF) Urine Concentration

    HB-EGF urine concentration (in picogram per milliliter [pg/mL]) at specified time points is reported here.

    Measured: Day 1 (1 hour pre-dose), Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  36. Anti-Proliferative Factor (APF) Urine Concentration

    APF activity was determined using 3 H-thymidine incorporation assay. The results were expressed as the percentage of inhibition of 3 H-thymidine incorporation in epithelial cells from urine specimens in the presence of anti proliferative factor.

    Measured: Day 1 (1 hour pre-dose), Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

  37. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Change From Baseline in Physical Examination

    Physical examination included the examination of general appearance, skin, neck, eyes, ears, nose, throat, cardiovascular assessment including rhythm, and presence of other cardiac abnormalities (for example gallops, murmurs, cardiomegaly), respiratory system, gastrointestinal system, genitourinary system, musculoskeletal system and any additional assessments necessary to establish baseline status. Clinically significant change in physical examination was based on investigator's discretion.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  38. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Change From Baseline in Vital Signs

    Vital signs included the assessment of the following: body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate and respiratory rate. Clinically significant change in vital signs was based on investigator's discretion.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  39. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Change From Baseline in Body Weight

    Clinically significant change in body weight was based on investigator's discretion.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  40. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Change From Baseline in Neurologic Examination

    Neurological examination included the assessment of cranial nerve function, coordination, reflexes, mental state, motor function, proprioception, gait and station, and sensory function (sharp sensation, warm/cold sensation, light touch, deep pressure, and vibration sensation). Clinically significant change in neurologic examination was based on investigator's discretion.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  41. Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Change From Baseline in Electrocardiogram (ECG)

    Clinically significant criteria for ECG abnormality: PR interval (maximum increase from Baseline of >=25% [only if Baseline value was greater than 200 millisecond] or otherwise 50%), QRS complex (maximum increase from Baseline of >=25% [only if Baseline value was greater than 200 millisecond] or otherwise 50%), QT interval, QT interval corrected using the Fridericia's formula (QTcF) (maximum increase from Baseline of >= 30 to <60; or >=60), QT interval corrected using the Bazett's formula (QTcB) (maximum increase from Baseline of >= 30 to <60; or >=60) and RR interval.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  42. Post-void Residual (PVR) Volume

    PVR volume is an objective assessment of the amount of urine (in milliliter) left in the bladder after normal urination and monitored whether the active treatment had an adverse effect on lower urinary tract voiding function. The PVR volume was assessed using trans-abdominal ultrasound (for example, bladder scanner) with the participant in a supine position immediately after voluntary urination.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 6, 16

  43. Number of Participants With Laboratory Abnormalities

    Criteria for laboratory abnormalities: Hematology parameters: red blood cell count: <0.8*lower limit of normal (LLN); reticulocytes count (absolute or percent): <0.5*LLN or greater than (>) 1.5*upper limit of normal (ULN); Platelets: <0.5*LLN or >1.75*ULN; white blood cell count: <0.6*LLN or >1.5*ULN; neutrophils (absolute or percent): <0.8*LLN or >1.2*ULN; basophils (absolute or percent): >1.2*ULN; lymphocytes (absolute or percent): <0.8*LLN or >1.2*ULN; monocytes (absolute or percent): >1.2*ULN. Serum Chemistry parameters: sodium: <0.95*LLN or >1.05*ULN, potassium, chloride, bicarbonate, calcium: <0.9*LLN or >1.1*ULN; magnesium: >1.1*ULN or <0.9*LLN; BUN (blood urea nitrogen): >1.3* ULN, creatinine: >1.3*ULN; aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase : >3.0*ULN ; total bilirubin: >1.5*ULN; albumin: <0.8*LLN or >1.2*ULN and glucose: <0.6*LLN or >1.5*ULN.

    Measured: Baseline up to Week 16

  44. Number of Participants With Presence of Anti-Drug Antibody (ADA)

    Human serum ADA samples were analyzed for the presence or absence of anti-tanezumab antibodies by using a semi quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

    Measured: Day 1, Week 4, 6, 16

  45. Plasma Concentration of Tanezumab

    Measured: 0 hour (pre-dose), 1, 2 hours post-dose on Day 1; and at Week 2, 4, 6, 10, 16

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted28 Jan 2008 (estimated)
  2. Study start17 Mar 2008
  3. Primary completion15 Apr 2009
  4. Study completion15 Apr 2009

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
65 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00601484
Sponsor's protocol ID
A4091010
Other IDs
IC POC
Status last verified
Apr 2021
First submitted
15 Jan 2008
Last updated
13 May 2021
Data monitoring committee
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data and related study documents (e.g. protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), Clinical Study Report (CSR)) upon request from qualified researchers, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions. Further details on Pfizer's data sharing criteria and process for requesting access can be found at: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical\_trials/trial\_data\_and\_results/data\_requests.

Publications

  • Imamura M, Scott NW, Wallace SA, Ogah JA, Ford AA, Dubos YA, Brazzelli M. Interventions for treating people with symptoms of bladder pain syndrome: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 30;7(7):CD013325. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013325.pub2.

    PubMed 32734597

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 2 study testing PF-04383119 in people with Cystitis, Interstitial, run by Pfizer at 34 sites in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 May 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 34 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 13 May 2021). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Change From Baseline in Average Daily Pain Score at Week 6 (time frame: Baseline, Week 6). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00601484, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 May 2021.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in