AzTrials
AzTrials

FibromyalgiaPhase 3NCT01387607

A Study For Pregabalin In Patients With Fibromyalgia

A Phase 3 study testing pregabalin in people with Fibromyalgia, run by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. at 22 sites in China.

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 evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin compared with placebo for management of fibromyalgia in adults. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Fibromyalgia
What is being tested?
pregabalin
Type of treatment
Pill or oral medicine
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
343 participants
Where
22 sitesChina
Study dates
6 Feb 2012to 31 Oct 2016
Phase
Phase 3
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 or female patients, at least 18 years of age
  • Meeting the ACR (America College of Rheumatology) criteria for fibromyalgia (ie, widespread pain present for at least 3 months, and pain in at least 11 of 18 specific tender point sites)
  • At screening (V1) and randomization (V2), patients must have a score of no less than 40 mm on the Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
  • At randomization (V2), at least 4 pain diaries must be completed satisfactorily within the last 7 days and the average pain score must be no less than 4

Who cannot join

  • Patients with no less than 30% decrease on the Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at randomization (V2) as compared to screening (V1)
  • Patients with other severe pain due to other conditions (eg, DPN or PHN) that may confound assessment or self-evaluation of the pain associated with fibromyalgia
  • Patients with any widespread inflammatory musculoskeletal disorders, widespread rheumatic diseases other than fibromyalgia, active infections, or untreated endocrine disorders
  • CLcr less than 60 mL/min (estimated from serum creatinine)

Trial locations and contacts

22 sites in 1 country.

22 sites in 1 country

China22 sites
  • Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University

    Beijing, Beijing Municipality, 100020

  • China-Japan Friendship Hospital/Rheumatology Department

    Beijing, 100029

  • Peking Union Medical College Hospital/Rheumatology Department

    Beijing, 100032

  • PLA. The Military General Hospital of Beijing

    Beijing, 100700

  • Department of Rheumatism And Immunity, The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College

    Bengbu, Anhui, 233000

  • Xiangya Hospital of Centre-south University

    Changsha, Kaifu District, Hunan, 410008

  • Si Chuan Huaxi Hospital/Rheumatology Department

    Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041

  • Southwest Hospital of the Third Military Medical University,PLA

    Chongqing, Chongqing Municipality, 400038

  • Department of Neurology,General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command of PLA

    Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510010

  • Guangdong General Hospital

    Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510080

  • Department of Neurology,The First Affiliated Hospital Of Guangzhou Medical University

    Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120

  • The Third Affiliated Hospital Of Sun Yat-sen University

    Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510630

  • Rheumatology Department, The first Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University

    Harbin, Heilongjiang, 150001

  • Rheumatology Department, The second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University

    Harbin, Heilongjiang, 150086

  • Anhui Province Hospital

    Hefei, Anhui, 230001

  • The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University/ Rheumatology and Immunology Department

    Kunming, Yunnan, 650032

  • The Second Affiliated Hospital to Nanchang University

    Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330006

  • Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University, Rheumatology Department

    Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, 200032

  • Rheumatology and Immunology Dept., Renji Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine

    Shanghai, 200001

  • Rheumatology and Immunology Department, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital

    Shanghai, 200003

  • The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University/Neurology Department

    Wenzhou, Zhejiang, 325000

  • Xijing Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University

    Xi’an, Shanxi, 710032

Other trials in China

About this study

Official title: A 14-week, Randomized, Double-blind Placebo-controlled Study For Pregabalin In Subjects With Fibromyalgia

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of pregabalin compared with placebo for management of fibromyalgia in adults.

Conditions
Fibromyalgia
Being tested
pregabalin, placebo
Keywords
Pregabalin, fibromyalgia
Medical subject headings
Fibromyalgia

What participants receive

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

  • pregabalinDrug

    Pregabalin capsule, 300-450mg/day, twice daily

  • placeboDrug

    Placebo, twice daily

Study groups in NCT01387607
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
PregabalinExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: pregabalin
PlaceboPlacebo comparatorMatched placebo
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 Endpoint Mean Pain Score During the Double-blind Treatment Period at Week 14

    Assessment of mean pain score was based on participant's daily pain diary. The daily pain diary consisted of an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The participants rated their pain during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily at awakening. The endpoint mean pain score was defined as the mean of the Week 14 pain diary entries in the double-blind treatment phase. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 pain diary entries up to and including Day 1.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

Secondary outcomes (23)
  1. Percentage of Participants Categorized by Each Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Score at Week 14

    The Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was a participant-rated instrument that measured change in participant's overall status on a scale ranging from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse), which was based on a validated scale, the Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC). Categories were defined based on the PGIC scores as followed: 1 = very much improved, 2 = much improved, 3 = minimally improved, 4 = no change, 5 = minimally worse, 6 = much worse and 7 = very much worse.

    Measured: Week 14

  2. Change From Baseline in Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) Total Score at Week 14

    The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) was a 20-item participant-reported outcome instrument designed to assess health status, progress, and outcomes in participants with fibromyalgia. It contained 10 subscales. There were 11 questions that are related specifically to physical functioning. The remaining items assessed pain, fatigue, stiffness, difficulty working, and symptoms of anxiousness and depression. Score range for each subscale was 0 to 10. The 10 subscales were combined to yield a total score with range from 0 to 100. The total score provided an estimation of fibromyalgia impact with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  3. Percentage of Participants With at Least 30% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline to Week 14

    Assessment of mean pain score was based on participant's daily pain diary. The daily pain diary consisted of an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The participants rated their pain during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily at awakening. Weekly mean pain score was calculated as mean value of the observations within the window for each week during the double-blind treatment phase. A participant with at least 30% reduction in weekly mean pain score from baseline to Week 14 was defined as a 30% responder.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  4. Percentage of Participants With at Least 50% Reduction in Weekly Mean Pain Score From Baseline to Week 14

    Assessment of mean pain score was based on participant's daily pain diary. The daily pain diary consisted of an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). The participants rated their pain during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily at awakening. Weekly mean pain score was calculated as mean value of the observations within the window for each week during the double-blind treatment phase. A participant with at least 50% reduction in weekly mean pain score from baseline to Week 14 was defined as a 50% responder.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  5. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Medical Outcome Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale - Sleep Disturbance Subscale Score

    The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of scores represented for sleep disturbance was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  6. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Medical Outcome Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale - Snoring, Awaken Short of Breath and Sleep Adequacy Subscale Scores

    The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of scores represented for snoring, awaken short of breath and sleep adequacy was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  7. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Medical Outcome Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale - Quantity of Sleep and Somnolence Subscale Scores

    The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of quantity of sleep parameter was 0 to 24 and somnolence was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  8. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Medical Outcome Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale - Sleep Problems Index Overall Score

    The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index. Range of sleep problem index overall score was 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more of the attribute.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  9. Percentage of Participants With Optimal Sleep at Week 14 in Medical Outcome Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale

    The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-Sleep Scale was a participant-rated questionnaire consisting of 12 items that assess key constructs of sleep. Instrument scoring yields 7 subscales (sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken short of breath or with a headache, quantity of sleep, optimal sleep, sleep adequacy, and somnolence) as well as a 9-item overall sleep problems index.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  10. Change From Baseline in Mean Sleep Interference Score at Week 14

    The Daily Sleep Interference Scale was an 11-point numerical scale ranging from 0 (does not interfere with sleep) to 10 (completely interferes [unable to sleep due to pain]). Participants were asked to describe how their pain had interfered with their sleep during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. Self-assessment was performed daily upon awakening. Baseline Mean Sleep Interference score was defined as the mean of all available last 7 sleep interference score diary entries up to and including Day 1.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  11. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) - Subjective Wake After Sleep Onset (sWASO)

    The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Wake after Sleep Onset (sWASO) parameter subjectively estimated the total amount of time the participant was awake after initial sleep onset until final awakening. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  12. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) - Subjective Latency to Sleep Onset (sLSO)

    The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Latency to Sleep Onset (sLSO) parameter subjectively estimated the amount of time to fall asleep after lights out. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  13. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) - Subjective Number of Awakenings After Sleep Onset (sNAASO)

    The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Number of Awakenings after Sleep Onset (sNAASO) parameter subjectively estimated the total number of times the participant awakened during the night until final awakening. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  14. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) - Subjective Total Sleep Time (sTST)

    The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Subjective Total Sleep Time (sTST) parameter subjectively estimated the total amount of time the participant was asleep after lights out until final awakening. Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  15. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) - Sleep Quality

    The Subjective Sleep Questionnaire (SSQ) was included in the participant's diary and designed to capture subjective evaluation of sleep behavior in participants with disrupted sleep. It was administered to each participant approximately 30 - 60 minutes after arising each day in the morning. The Sleep Quality parameter subjectively rated the quality of sleep during the past night by selecting a number between 0 (very poor) and 10 (excellent). Baseline was defined as the mean of last 7 SSQ diary entries up to and including Day 1.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  16. Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) Score at Week 14

    The Multidimensional Assessment of Fatigue (MAF) scale was a self-administered survey that yielded a Global Fatigue Index by assessing the participant's level of fatigue and the degree to which fatigue interferes with activities of daily living. It contained 16 items and measured 4 dimensions of fatigue: severity (2 items), distress (1 item), degree of interference in activities of daily living (11 items), and timing (2 items). Index range was 1 to 50 and higher scores reflected greater impairment.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  17. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey - Mental Component Summary Score

    The Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was a self-administered questionnaire that measured each of the following 8 health concepts: Physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, social functioning, bodily pain, mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, vitality, and general health perception. Mental component included mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, vitality and general health perception. Score range for mental component summary score was 0 to 100 and higher scores reflected better participant status.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  18. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey - Physical Component Summary Score

    The Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was a self-administered questionnaire that measured each of the following 8 health concepts: Physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, social functioning, bodily pain, mental health, role limitations due to emotional problems, vitality, and general health perception. Physical component included physical functioning, role limitations due to physical problems, social functioning and bodily pain. Score range for physical component summary score was 0 to 100 and higher scores reflected better participant status.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  19. Change From Baseline in Pain Visual Analog Scale (Pain VAS) Score at Week 14

    The Pain Visual Analog Scale (Pain VAS) was a horizontal line; 100 mm in length, self administered by the participants in order to rate pain from 0 "no pain" to 100 "worst possible pain".

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  20. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) - Anxiety Subscale Score

    The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was a self-reported 14-item instrument that consisted of two 7-item subscales that measure the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. For each subscale, score range was 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  21. Change From Baseline at Week 14 in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) - Depression Subscale Score

    The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was a self-reported 14-item instrument that consisted of two 7-item subscales that measure the presence and severity of anxiety and depression. For each subscale, range was 0 to 21, with higher scores indicating greater impairment.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 14

  22. Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs), Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) and Discontinuation Due to AEs

    An adverse event (AE) was any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation participant administered a product or medical device. A Serious adverse event (SAE) was any untoward medical occurrence at any dose that resulted in death; was life-threatening (immediate risk of death); required inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; persistent or significant disability (substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions); congenital anomaly/birth defect. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were events between first dose of study drug and up to follow-up visit (Study Day 105) that were absent before treatment or that worsened after treatment. AEs included both SAEs and non-SAEs.

    Measured: Baseline to Follow up (Day 105)

  23. Number of Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) Categorized by Severity

    A mild Adverse Event (AE) was an AE that did not interfere with participant's usual function. A moderate AE was an AE that interfered participant's usual function to some extent. A severe AE was an AE that interfered significantly with participant's usual function.

    Measured: Baseline to Follow up (Day 105)

Timeline

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

  1. First posted4 Jul 2011 (estimated)
  2. Study start6 Feb 2012
  3. Primary completion31 Oct 2016
  4. Study completion31 Oct 2016

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 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
343 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01387607
Sponsor's protocol ID
A0081241
Status last verified
Sep 2017
First submitted
30 Jun 2011
Last updated
28 Jan 2021
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Zhang X, Xu H, Zhang Z, Li Y, Pauer L, Liao S, Zhang F. Efficacy and Safety of Pregabalin for Fibromyalgia in a Population of Chinese Subjects. J Pain Res. 2021 Feb 25;14:537-548. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S281483. eCollection 2021.

    PubMed 33658841

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing pregabalin in people with Fibromyalgia, run by Pfizer's Upjohn has merged with Mylan to form Viatris Inc. at 22 sites in China.

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 4 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 28 Jan 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 22 sites in China. 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 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

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 30 Jul 2018). 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 Endpoint Mean Pain Score During the Double-blind Treatment Period at Week 14 (time frame: Baseline, Week 14). 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 NCT01387607, 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 28 Jan 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