Postherpetic NeuralgiaPhase 2NCT00612105
Safety/Efficacy Study of Retigabine vs. Placebo in Post-Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN)
A Phase 2 study testing Retigabine in people with Postherpetic Neuralgia, run by Bausch Health Americas, Inc. at 45 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of retigabine vs. placebo in reducing pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 85 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Postherpetic Neuralgia
- What is being tested?
- Retigabine
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 187 participants
- Where
- 45 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- Oct 2007to Dec 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 to 85 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Ability to provide informed consent
- Male or female subjects
- 18-85 years of age
- PHN for more than 6 months after the healing of herpes zoster skin rash
- Has a pain score at screening and randomization that qualifies
Who cannot join
- Other significant pain that may potentially confound PHN pain assessment
- Previous neurolytic or neurosurgical therapy for PHN
- Subject has evidence of a progressive central nervous system (CNS) disease (e.g. CNS lupus, tumors, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's), lesion, or encephalopathy
- Significant psychiatric or neuropsychiatric disorders including but not limited to severe depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia spectrum disorder, history of suicide attempt, or recent history of suicidal ideation
- Has clinically significant abnormalities on physical examination, vital signs, ECG, or laboratory tests at the screening visit
Trial locations and contacts
45 sites in 2 countries.
45 sites in 2 countries
United States41 sites
Study site
Allentown, Pennsylvania, 18103
Study site
Atlanta, Georgia, 30308
Study site
Atlanta, Georgia, 30309
Study site
Austin, Texas, 78756
Study site
Bay City, Michigan, 48706
Study site
Birmingham, Alabama, 35215
Study site
Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, 15017
Study site
Charleston, South Carolina, 29412
Study site
Cleveland, Ohio, 44195
Study site
Detroit, Michigan, 48201
Study site
Evansville, Indiana, 47714
Study site
Fargo, North Dakota, 58104
Study site
Garden Grove, California, 92845
Study site
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 39401
Study site
La Jolla, California, 92037
Study site
Lexington, Kentucky, 40503
Study site
Little River, South Carolina, 29566
Study site
Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205
Study site
Mesa, Arizona, 85210
Study site
Midvale, Utah, 84047-1761
Study site
Mogadore, Ohio, 44260
Study site
Nashville, Tennessee, 37215
Study site
New York, New York, 10004
Study site
North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, 29582
Study site
Orlando, Florida, 32806
Study site
Overland Park, Kansas, 66211
Study site
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27607
Study site
San Antonio, Texas, 78229
Study site
San Diego, California, 92128
Study site
Sarasota, Florida, 34243
Study site
Shreveport, Louisiana, 71103
Study site
St Louis, Missouri, 63117
Study site
St Louis, Missouri, 63141
Study site
Sugar Land, Texas, 77479
Study site
Tabor City, North Carolina, 28463
Study site
Tampa, Florida, 33613
Study site
Toms River, New Jersey, 8755
Study site
Tucson, Arizona, 85741
Study site
West Palm Beach, Florida, 33407
Study site
Westlake Village, California, 91361
Study site
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27103
South Africa4 sites
Study site
Belville, Western Cape, 7530
Study site
Bloemfontein, Free State, 9300
Study site
George, Western Cape, 6529
Study site
Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, 6001
About this study
Official title: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2a Proof-of-Concept Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Maximally Tolerated Doses of Retigabine vs. Placebo in Reducing the Pain Associated With Post-Herpetic Neuralgia
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of retigabine vs. placebo in reducing pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia.
Read the detailed description
This is a Phase 2a proof of concept study evaluating the safety/efficacy of retigabine vs. placebo in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia. After screening, patients will enter a maximum 6 week titration period followed by a 4 week maintenance period and a 3 week taper phase.
- Conditions
- Postherpetic Neuralgia
- Being tested
- Retigabine, Placebo
- Keywords
- Postherpetic Neuralgia, PHN, Shingles,
- Medical subject headings
- Neuralgia, Postherpetic, Herpes Zoster
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
RetigabineDrug
150mg/day up to 900mg/day
PlaceboDrug
daily
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Retigabine Receives: Drug: Retigabine |
| 2 | Placebo comparator | Placebo Receives: Drug: Placebo |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Primary Endpoint Will be the Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score Over the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase.
Change from Baseline (BL) was calculated as the value of the average diary pain score for the last 7 days of the MP minus the value of the average pain score at BL (post wash-out period, including the average of the last 7 available entries prior to/including the diary pain measurement on Titration Day 0). Based on their pain experienced during the previous 24 hours, participants assessed their pain every evening at bedtime in an electronic diary by choosing the appropriate number on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS): 0, no pain; 1 to 3, mild; 4 to 6, moderate; 7 to 10, severe pain.
Measured: Baseline and Week 4 (Maintenance Phase-MP)
Secondary outcomes (22)
Change From Baseline to Weeks 2 and 4 of the Maintenance Phase in Mean In-clinic Pain Assessment
Participants rated their pain during the previous 24 hours at all clinic visits using an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS): 0, no pain; 1 to 3, mild; 4 to 6, moderate; 7 to 10, severe pain (10=worst possible pain). Change in In-clinic Pain Assessment was calculated by subtracting the average score on the NRS at Week 2 and Week 4 (values for each week were observed cases) of the MP from the average score on the NRS at Baseline (the last non-missing measurement prior to taking study drug).
Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2 and 4 (Maintenance Phase - MP)
Number of Rescue Medication Tablets Taken Per Day During the Maintenance Phase (MP)
Participants recorded the number of acetaminophen tablets taken during the previous 24 hours in a participant diary. Rescue medication was summarized as the mean number of doses taken per day during each week of the Maintenance Phase (MP) and the mean number of doses taken during all MP weeks.
Measured: Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maintenance Phase
Change From Baseline in Pain Intensity Score at Each Week During the Maintenance Phase (MP)
Least square mean (LSM) of pain intensity was calculated from the NRS score entered by the participants in their diaries at each week during the MP. Participants rated their pain during the previous 24 hours at all clinic visits using an NRS: 0, no pain; 1-3, mild; 4-6, moderate; 7-10 (worst possible pain), severe pain. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the value of the average of the LSM of the NRS score at each week during the MP (the last 7 available diary entries in the MP were used, provided at least 3 existed) from the average Baseline value of the LSM of the NRS score.
Measured: Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 (MP)
Number of Participants Classified as Responders, With a 50% and 30% Pain Reduction From Baseline to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase
Responders were defined as participants achieving a mean >=50% or >=30% pain reduction based on the NRS score from Baseline to the last 7 days of the MP. Those participants who did not have at least 3 diary entries in the MP, those who withdrew during the Titration Phase (TP), and non-completers (NC: who did not complete the study) were classified as non-responders. The number of responders and responders including non-completers from Baseline to the last 7 days of the MP were reported.
Measured: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Change From Baseline to the End of the MP (Included All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP) in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Scores
Change from BL (average value of MOS Sleep Scale score including Overall Sleep Problem [OSP] Index at end of MP minus average BL value) to the end of the MP was summarized for the OSP Index, in addition to the following subscales of the MOS Sleep Scale: Sleep Disturbance; Sleep Adequacy; Snoring; Awakening with Shortness of Breath or with a Headache; Somnolence; and Optimal Sleep. Each item was transformed to a scale with a range of 0-100. For each subscale, except Optimal Sleep, higher scores indicate a greater level of what was being measured (i.e., more snoring, more sleep adequacy, etc.).
Measured: Baseline and End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4).
Change From Baseline to the End of the MP (Included All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP) in Sleep Quantity
Change from Baseline in sleep quantity was calculated by subtracting the average value of sleep quantity, calculated in hours, at the end of the MP from the average Baseline value.
Measured: Baseline and End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4).
Number of Participants With the Indicated Change From Baseline to the End of the Maintenance Phase in Optimal Sleep Based on the Sleep Quantity Domain of the MOS Sleep Scale
Optimal Sleep was based on the Sleep Quantity domain of the MOS Sleep Scale and included the options of "Yes" if sleep quantity was 7-8 hours, and "No" otherwise. "Improved" indicated a change in response of no at baseline to yes at the end of the MP, "Same" indicated no change in response, and "Worse" indicated a change in response from yes at baseline to no at the end of the MP.
Measured: Baseline and End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4).
Number of Participants With the Indicated Overall Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
For the PGIC assessment, participants were asked to assess their overall status since they initiated the study drug to the end of the Maintenance Phase using a 7-point categorical scale: 1=very much improved, 2=much improved, 3=minimally improved, 4=no change, 5=minimally worse, 6=much worse, and 7=very much worse. All participants who completed Week 4 of the Maintenance Phase and participants who terminated early during the Maintenance Phase were assessed.
Measured: Baseline to the end of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Mean Score on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the End of the Maintenance Phase
The TSQM assessed the participant's overall satisfaction with treatment, including subscales to assess effectiveness, side effects, convenience, and global satisfaction. Raw scores from the scale were transformed into a numeric scale ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with treatment. TSQM was reported at the end of the MP. Participants who completed Week 4 of the MP and who terminated early during the MP were assessed.
Measured: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Scores on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) at the End of the MP for All Participants Who Completed Week-4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP
The BPI-SF assessed pain intensity, pain relief from medication, and pain interference with function over the previous 24 hours. Pain intensity was assessed by the mean of 4 intensity items rated on a 0-10 categorical scale: 0=no pain, 10=pain as bad as you can imagine. Pain interference was assessed by determining the mean of the 7 interference items on a 0-10 categorical scale ranging from 0=does not interfere to 10=completely interferes. The level of pain relief provided by treatment was assessed on an 11-point categorical scale ranging from 0% to 100%
Measured: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Scores on the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 (SF-36) at the End of the MP for All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP
Least square (LS) mean calculated based on participant's assessment of SF-36,a quality of life questionnaire consisting of 36 items grouped into 8 domains. These 8 domains further grouped into 2 overall summary measures,physical health and mental health. Higher scores on SF-36 represented better state of health. Physical/mental components summarized the data of all the physical/mental domains of SF-36 and higher scores represented better state of health.
Measured: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Scores for Reported Health Transition at the End of the MP for All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP
The least square (LS) mean score for reported health transition was calculated based on the scores (ranging from 1 to 5) given by the participant in answer to the following question: "Compared to 1 year ago, how would you rate your health in general now?". Lower numbers represent a better state of health.
Measured: End of maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at Baseline to the Question: "How Painful Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Tactile Allodynia
At Baseline, the investigator conducted the Neuropathic Pain Physical Examination (NPPE) to examine hyperalgesia and allodynia (tactile and cold). Tactile allodynia was assessed with a foam brush, based on the question:"How painful was the affected side compared to the opposite side?".
Measured: Baseline Phase (Day -7 to Randomization Day 0)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at Baseline to the Questions of "Is it Cool?" and "Is it Painful?" in an Assessment of Cold Threshold and Allodynia
At Baseline the investigator conducted the NPPE to examine hyperalgesia and allodynia (tactile and cold). Cold threshold and allodynia was assessed to determine if a metal bar felt cool and if it felt painful, based on the questions:"Is it cool?" and "Is it painful?"
Measured: Timeframe: Baseline Phase (Day -7 to Randomization Day 0)
Number of Subjects With the Indicated Responses at Baseline to the Questions: "How Sharp Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" and "How Painfule Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Hyperalgesia
At Baseline the investigator conducted the NPPE to examine hyperalgesia and allodynia (tactile and cold). Hyperalgesia is defined as increased sensitivity to pain, which may be caused by damage to peripheral nerves. It was assessed with a pinprick brush, based on the questions: "How sharp was the affected side compared to the opposite side?" and "How painfule was the affected side compared to the opposite side?"
Measured: Baseline Phase (Day -7 to Randomization Day 0)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at the End of the MP to the Question: "How Painful Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Tactile Allodynia
At the end of the MP, the investigator conducted the NPPE (an examination of the effect of retigabine on sensory abnormalities) to examine hyperalgesia and allodynia (tactile and cold). Tactile allodynia was assessed with a foam brush, based on the question:"How painful was the affected side compared to the opposite side?" End of Maintenance Phase includes participants who completed Week 4 of the MP and who terminated early during the MP.
Measured: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at the End of the MP to the Questions of "Is it Cool?" and "Is it Painful?" in an Assessment of Cold Threshold and Allodynia
At the end of the MP, the investigator conducted the NPPE (an examination of the effect of retigabine on sensory abnormalities) to examine hyperalgesia and allodynia (tactile and cold). Cold threshold and allodynia was assessed to determine if a metal bar felt cool and if it felt painful, based on the questions:"Is it cool?" and "Is it painful?"
Measured: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Number of Participants With Indicated Responses at the End of the MP to the Questions: "How Sharp Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" and "How Painful Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Hyperalgesia
At the end of the MP, the investigator conducted the NPPE (an examination of the effect of retigabine on sensory abnormalities) to examine hyperalgesia and allodynia (tactile and cold). Hyperalgesia is defined as increased sensitivity to pain, which may be caused by damage to peripheral nerves. It was assessed with a pinprick brush, based on the questions:"How sharp was the affected side compared to the opposite side?" and How painful was the affected side compared to the opposite side?"
Measured: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype "Irritable Nociceptors"
Participants were stratified into four different PHN subtypes based on the NPPE. Participants with pain, abnormal sensitization of the specific receptor (irritable nociceptors), and with minimal sensory loss were stratified in the"irritable nociceptors" subtype. Based on their pain experienced during the previous 24 hours, participants assessed their pain every evening at bedtime in an electronic diary by choosing the appropriate number on an 11-point NRS: 0, no pain; 1 to 3, mild; 4 to 6, moderate; 7 to 10, severe pain.
Measured: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype"Deafferentation Type 1 (D Type 1)"
Participants stratified into 4 different PHN subtypes based on NPPE. Participants with marked sensory loss associated with severe burning pain upon slight mechanical stimuli (allodynia) were stratified in the "deafferentation type 1" subtype. Based on their pain experienced during the previous 24 hours, participants assessed their pain every evening at bedtime in an electronic diary by choosing the appropriate number on an 11-point NRS: 0, no pain; 1 to 3, mild; 4 to 6, moderate; 7 to 10, severe pain.
Measured: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype "Deafferentation Type 2 (D Type 2)"
Participants stratified into 4 different PHN subtypes based on NPPE. Participants with marked sensory loss and severe spontaneous burning pain without allodynia associated with reorganization of central nerve fibers were stratified in the "deafferentation type 2" subtype. Based on their pain experienced during the previous 24 hours, participants assessed their pain every evening at bedtime in an electronic diary by choosing the appropriate number on an 11-point NRS: 0, no pain; 1 to 3, mild; 4 to 6, moderate; 7 to 10, severe pain.
Measured: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance phase (MP)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype "Unclassifiable"
Participants stratified into 4 different PHN subtypes based on NPPE. Participants who could not be specifically differentiated in any of the other three subtypes were stratified as "unclassifiable" meaning that the participants could not be classified into any of the predefined PHN subtypes. Based on their pain experienced during the previous 24 hours, participants assessed their pain every evening at bedtime in an electronic diary by choosing the appropriate number on an 11-point NRS: 0, no pain; 1 to 3, mild; 4 to 6, moderate; 7 to 10, severe pain.
Measured: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Feb 2008 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2007
- Primary completionMay 2009
- Study completionDec 2009
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Postherpetic NeuralgiaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Bausch Health Americas, Inc.The sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 187 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Bausch Health Americas, Inc.
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- David Lineberry, Study director, Sponsor GmbH
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00612105
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- VRX-RET-E22-NP201
- Status last verified
- Apr 2018
- First submitted
- 25 Jan 2008
- Last updated
- 8 May 2018
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 May 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 2a Proof-of-Concept Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Maximally Tolerated Doses of Retigabine vs. Placebo in Reducing the Pain Associated With Post-Herpetic Neuralgia
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00612105
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- VRX-RET-E22-NP201
- Conditions
- Postherpetic Neuralgia
- Keywords
- Postherpetic Neuralgia, PHN, Shingles,
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 187 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Bausch Health Americas, Inc.Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- Oct 2007
- Primary completion
- May 2009 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2009 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Feb 2008 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 11 Jan 2012
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of retigabine vs. placebo in reducing pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia.
Detailed description
This is a Phase 2a proof of concept study evaluating the safety/efficacy of retigabine vs. placebo in patients with post-herpetic neuralgia. After screening, patients will enter a maximum 6 week titration period followed by a 4 week maintenance period and a 3 week taper phase.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Experimental | Drug: RetigabineRetigabine |
| 2 | Placebo comparator | Drug: PlaceboPlacebo |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 85 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Ability to provide informed consent
- Male or female subjects
- 18-85 years of age
- PHN for more than 6 months after the healing of herpes zoster skin rash
- Has a pain score at screening and randomization that qualifies
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Other significant pain that may potentially confound PHN pain assessment
- Previous neurolytic or neurosurgical therapy for PHN
- Subject has evidence of a progressive central nervous system (CNS) disease (e.g. CNS lupus, tumors, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's), lesion, or encephalopathy
- Significant psychiatric or neuropsychiatric disorders including but not limited to severe depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia spectrum disorder, history of suicide attempt, or recent history of suicidal ideation
- Has clinically significant abnormalities on physical examination, vital signs, ECG, or laboratory tests at the screening visit
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Retigabine150mg/day up to 900mg/day | Drug | 1 |
| Placebodaily | Drug | 2 |
Primary outcome
Primary Endpoint Will be the Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score Over the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase.
Time frame: Baseline and Week 4 (Maintenance Phase-MP)
Change from Baseline (BL) was calculated as the value of the average diary pain score for the last 7 days of the MP minus the value of the average pain score at BL (post wash-out period, including the average of the last 7 available entries prior to/including the diary pain measurement on Titration Day 0). Based on their pain experienced during the previous 24 hours, participants assessed their pain every evening at bedtime in an electronic diary by choosing the appropriate number on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale (NRS): 0, no pain; 1 to 3, mild; 4 to 6, moderate; 7 to 10, severe pain.
22 secondary outcomes
Change From Baseline to Weeks 2 and 4 of the Maintenance Phase in Mean In-clinic Pain Assessment
Time frame: Baseline and Weeks 2 and 4 (Maintenance Phase - MP)
Number of Rescue Medication Tablets Taken Per Day During the Maintenance Phase (MP)
Time frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 Maintenance Phase
Change From Baseline in Pain Intensity Score at Each Week During the Maintenance Phase (MP)
Time frame: Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4 (MP)
Number of Participants Classified as Responders, With a 50% and 30% Pain Reduction From Baseline to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase
Time frame: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Change From Baseline to the End of the MP (Included All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP) in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Scores
Time frame: Baseline and End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4).
Change From Baseline to the End of the MP (Included All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP) in Sleep Quantity
Time frame: Baseline and End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4).
Number of Participants With the Indicated Change From Baseline to the End of the Maintenance Phase in Optimal Sleep Based on the Sleep Quantity Domain of the MOS Sleep Scale
Time frame: Baseline and End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4).
Number of Participants With the Indicated Overall Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
Time frame: Baseline to the end of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Mean Score on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the End of the Maintenance Phase
Time frame: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Scores on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) at the End of the MP for All Participants Who Completed Week-4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP
Time frame: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Scores on the Medical Outcomes Short Form-36 (SF-36) at the End of the MP for All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP
Time frame: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Scores for Reported Health Transition at the End of the MP for All Participants Who Completed Week 4 of the MP and Who Terminated Early During the MP
Time frame: End of maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at Baseline to the Question: "How Painful Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Tactile Allodynia
Time frame: Baseline Phase (Day -7 to Randomization Day 0)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at Baseline to the Questions of "Is it Cool?" and "Is it Painful?" in an Assessment of Cold Threshold and Allodynia
Time frame: Timeframe: Baseline Phase (Day -7 to Randomization Day 0)
Number of Subjects With the Indicated Responses at Baseline to the Questions: "How Sharp Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" and "How Painfule Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Hyperalgesia
Time frame: Baseline Phase (Day -7 to Randomization Day 0)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at the End of the MP to the Question: "How Painful Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Tactile Allodynia
Time frame: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Number of Participants With the Indicated Responses at the End of the MP to the Questions of "Is it Cool?" and "Is it Painful?" in an Assessment of Cold Threshold and Allodynia
Time frame: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Number of Participants With Indicated Responses at the End of the MP to the Questions: "How Sharp Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" and "How Painful Was the Affected Side Compared to the Opposite Side?" in an Assessment of Hyperalgesia
Time frame: End of Maintenance Phase (MP) (Week 4)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype "Irritable Nociceptors"
Time frame: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype"Deafferentation Type 1 (D Type 1)"
Time frame: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype "Deafferentation Type 2 (D Type 2)"
Time frame: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance phase (MP)
Change From Baseline in the Average Diary Pain Score to the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase by Post Herpetic Neuralgia (PHN) Subtype "Unclassifiable"
Time frame: Baseline and Week 4 Maintenance Phase (MP)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 May 2018.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Related trials for Postherpetic Neuralgia
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Simultaneous Engagement of Networks for Alleviating Pain (SENAP)
Neuropathic Pain, Postherpetic Neuralgia
Active, not recruiting
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain
Chronic Neuropathic Pain, Post-Stroke Pain
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Obesity and Obesity-Related Factors and Risk of Herpes Zoster (Shingles) and Postherpetic Neuralgia
Herpes Zoster (HZ)
Recruiting
The Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of Venlafaxine for Prevention of Postherpetic Neuralgia in Patients With Acute Herpes Zoster
Herpes Zoster, Pain
RecruitingPhase 2
A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of HL-1186 Tablet in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia
Postherpetic Neuralgia ( PHN )
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
David Lineberry study director
Sponsor GmbH
45 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Retigabine in people with Postherpetic Neuralgia, run by Bausch Health Americas, Inc. at 45 sites in 2 countries.
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 5 inclusion and 5 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 8 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 45 sites in United States, South Africa. 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 11 Jan 2012). 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?
Primary Endpoint Will be the Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score Over the Last 7 Days of the Maintenance Phase. (time frame: Baseline and Week 4 (Maintenance Phase-MP)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 8 May 2018.