Pelvic Organ ProlapseXenformNCT01945580
Xenform Postmarket Surveillance Study
A study testing Prolapse Repair in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Boston Scientific Corporation at 25 sites in United States.
Trial summary
To compare transvaginal repair with a biologic graft to traditional native tissue repair in women surgically treated for anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older, women only
- Conditions the study is for
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- What is being tested?
- Prolapse Repair
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 374 participants
- Where
- 25 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 10 Feb 2014to 12 Feb 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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
- Women only
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Subject is female
- Subject is at least 18 years of age
- Subject has pelvic organ prolapse with the leading edge at or beyond the hymen. At or beyond the hymen is defined as POP-Q scores of Ba≥0 (for prolapse of the anterior compartment alone) or C≥0 (for prolapse of the apical compartment alone) or C≥-1/2 TVL and Ba≥0 (for a multi-compartment prolapse that includes the anterior and apical compartments).
- Subject reports a bothersome bulge they can see or feel per PFDI-20, question 3, response of 2 or higher (i.e., responses of "somewhat", "moderately", or "quite a bit")
- Subject or subject's legally authorized representative is willing to provide written informed consent
- Subject is willing and able to comply with the follow-up regimen
Who cannot join
- Subject is pregnant or intends to become pregnant during the study
- Subject has an active or chronic systemic infection including any gynecologic infection, untreated urinary tract infection (UTI) or tissue necrosis
- Subject has history of pelvic organ cancer (e.g. uterine, ovarian, bladder, colo-rectal or cervical)
- Subject has had prior or is currently undergoing radiation, laser therapy, or chemotherapy in the pelvic area
- Subject has taken systemic steroids (within the last month), or immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatment (within the last 3 months)
- Subject has systemic connective tissue disease (e.g. scleroderma, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Marfan syndrome, Ehlers Danlos, collagenosis, polymyositis, polymyalgia rheumatica)
Show all 15Show fewer
- Subject has chronic systemic pain that includes the pelvic area or chronic focal pain that involves the pelvis
- Subject has uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM)
- Subject has a known neurologic or medical condition affecting bladder function (e.g., multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury or stroke with residual neurologic deficit)
- Subject is seeking obliterative vaginal surgery as treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (colpocleisis)
- Subject is not able to conform to the modified dorsal lithotomy position
- Subject is currently participating in or plans to participate in another device or drug study during this study
- Subject has a known sensitivity to any Xenform component
- Subject has had previous prolapse repair with mesh in the target compartment
- Subject is planning to undergo a concomitant prolapse repair with use of mesh in the non-target compartment
Trial locations and contacts
25 sites in 1 country.
25 sites in 1 country
United States25 sites
Emory Hospital
Atlanta, Georgia, 30322
Augusta University
Augusta, Georgia, 30912
University of Buffalo
Buffalo, New York, 14222
Mount Auburn Hospital
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02138
Cherokee Womens Health Specialist
Canton, Georgia, 30114
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599
MultiCare Women's Health Care
Covington, Washington, 98042
Acadia Women's Health
Crowley, Louisiana, 70526
Practice Research Organization
Dallas, Texas, 75230
Prime Care of SEO
Dresden, Ohio, 43821
Center for Pelvic Health
Franklin, Tennessee, 37067
Carolina Urology Partners
Gastonia, North Carolina, 28054
Prisma Health System
Greenville, South Carolina, 29605
Chesapeake Urology Research Associates
Hanover, Maryland, 21061
Houston Metro Urology
Houston, Texas, 77030
Las Colinas ObGyn
Irving, Texas, 75062
Beyer Research
Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49009
Beth Israel Medical Center
New York, New York, 10003
NYU Langone Medical Center
New York, New York, 10016
University of California, Irvine Medical Center
Orange, California, 92868
Chesapeake Urology Research Associates
Owings Mills, Maryland, 21117
NorthShore University Health System
Skokie, Illinois, 60076
Cooper University Hospital
Voorhees Township, New Jersey, 08043
Southern Urogynecology
West Columbia, South Carolina, 29169
Lyndhurst Clinical Research
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27103
About this study
Official title: A Prospective, Non-Randomized, Parallel Cohort, Multi-Center Study of Xenform vs. Native Tissue for the Treatment of Women With Anterior/Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse
To compare transvaginal repair with a biologic graft to traditional native tissue repair in women surgically treated for anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse.
Read the detailed description
The primary objective is to evaluate clinical effectiveness of transvaginal repair with Xenform against traditional native tissue repair in women surgically treated for anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary objectives are to evaluate Xenform-related complications and subject reported outcomes.
The primary endpoint of the study is to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform over native tissue repair at 36 months as compared to baseline. Success will be based on a composite of objective and subjective measures.
Additionally, a co-primary endpoint of the study is to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform to native tissue repair for safety by comparing rates of serious device or serious procedure related complications between baseline and the 36 month time point.
The secondary endpoints of the study include assessments of complications and subject reported outcomes.
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Being tested
- Prolapse Repair
- Keywords
- POP, Transvaginal, Native Tissue Repair, Repair Augmented with Mesh, Biologic Graft, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Medical subject headings
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Prolapse RepairProcedure or surgery
Also called Transvaginal, Prolapse, POP Repair, Anterior
Transvaginal anterior/apical pelvic organ prolapse repair
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Xenform | Active comparator | Prolapse Repair with Xenform Soft Tissue Repair Matrix Receives: Procedure: Prolapse Repair |
| Control | Active comparator | Prolapse Repair with Native Tissue Only Receives: Procedure: Prolapse Repair |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of Participants With Success at 36 Months
The primary endpoint of the study was to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform over NTR at 36 months as compared to baseline. Success was based on a composite of objective and subjective measures.
- Subjective success was achieved if the patient denied symptoms of vaginal bulging per Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) question 3, answering "no" or "yes" but "Not at all" bothersome (< 2).
- Anatomic success (in the operated compartment):
- Anterior segment: Leading edge of anterior prolapse was at or above the hymen or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) point Ba ≤ 0.
- Apical segment: The vaginal apex did not descend more than one-half into the vaginal canal (i.e., POP-Q point C < -1/2 TVL) for multi-compartment prolapse or POP-Q point C ≤ 0 for single compartment apical prolapse.
- No retreatment for POP: no additional surgical treatment for POP in the segment(s) of the vagina treated at the index surgery or no pessary use
Measured: 36 Months
Number of Participants With One or More Serious Device-related and/or Procedure-Related Adverse Events
Co-primary endpoint of the study was to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal mesh repair with Xenform to NTR for safety by comparing rates of serious device-related or serious procedure-related complications between baseline and the 36-month time point.
Measured: 36 months
Secondary outcomes (11)
Number of Participants With Mesh Erosion
Incidence of Mesh Erosion at 36 months
Measured: 36 months
Number of Participants With Mesh Exposure
Incidence of mesh exposure at 36 months
Measured: 36 Months
Number of Participants With de Novo Dyspareunia
Incidence of de novo dyspareunia at 36 months
Measured: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes Measured With the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7)]
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [quality of life (QOL) per the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7)]
The PFIQ-7 is composed of three separate but related assessments: the UIQ-7 addresses the impact of urinary incontinence symptoms, the CRAIQ-7 addresses the impact of colorectal-anal or bowel symptoms, and the POPIQ-7 addresses impact of vaginal and pelvic symptoms. For each question, the low score (0) corresponds to "not at all" and the high score (3) corresponds to "quite a bit". The scores for the UIQ-7, CRAIQ-7 and POPIQ-7 are additive to yield the final PFIQ-7 score. The scale scores are then added together to get the total PFIQ-7 score, which ranges from 0-300. A lower score means there is a lesser effect on quality of life.
Reported score is change from baseline at 36 months.
Measured: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes Measured by the Pelvic Floor Symptoms Per the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20)
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [pelvic floor symptoms per the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20)]
The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) is complimentary to the PFIQ-7 and focuses on symptoms of distress in the same compartmentalized fashion as the PFIQ-7. Like the PFIQ-7, the PFDI-20 consists of three components: Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI; 6 questions), the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI; 6 questions), and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI; 8 questions). The scoring for the PFDI-20 is similar to the PFIQ-7 where each individual component score is summed. The total ranges from 0 to 300 with a higher score indicating a greater impact to QOL (i.e., distress symptoms are more noticeable) and a lower score indicating a lesser impact to QOL (i.e., distress symptoms are less noticeable).
The reported result is change from baseline at 36 months.
Measured: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes Measured by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12)
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [change in sexual functioning per the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12)]
This is a self-administered questionnaire and the responses are graded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (always) to 4 (never). Values range from 0 to 48 and a higher score indicates better sexual function.
The reported result is change from baseline at 36 months.
Measured: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes: Pain Measured by the TOMUS Pain Scale
Improvement in subject specific outcomes at 36 months compared to baseline [pain per the TOMUS pain scale]
The TOMUS Pain Score, a visual analog instrument with a scale of 0 (no pain sensation) to 10 (most intense pain sensation imaginable), was used to assess pain associated with surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in this study. There are seven (7) questions each with a maximum score of 10 and a possible score range of 0-70).
The reported results are change from baseline at 36 months.
Measured: 36 months
Subject Improvement Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement for Prolapse (PGI-I)
Assessment of subject's level of improvement, measured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement for Prolapse (PGI-I)
The Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for prolapse symptoms is a validated QOL instrument that assesses patient perception of overall improvement after surgical interventions for POP.12 The scale rates the patient's improvement or worsening of prolapse symptoms relative to baseline. The scale is as follows: 1- Very much better; 2- Much better; 3- A little better; 4- No change; 5- A little worse; 6- Much worse; 7- Very much worse. Assessments were performed at 6-month intervals beginning 6 months after the index procedure.
Measured: 36 months
Number of Participants With Re-Intervention or Re-Surgery
Absence of re-intervention or re-surgery for recurrence or persistence of POP or Xenform exposure/erosion
Measured: 36 months
Surgical Success
Surgical success based on the following composite outcome:
- Subjective success: Patient denied symptoms of vaginal bulging per PFDI-20 question 3, answering "no" or "yes" but "Not at all" bothersome (˂ 2)
- Anatomic success (in the operated compartment):
- Anterior Segment: No anterior prolapse at or beyond the hymen or POP-Q point Ba ˂ 0
- Apical Segment: The vaginal apex did not descend more than one-half into the vaginal canal (i.e., POP-Q point C ˂ 1/2 TVL) for multi-compartment prolapse or POP-Q point C ˂ 0 for prolapse of the apical compartment alone
- No retreatment for POP (treated segment): No additional surgical treatment for POP in the segment(s) of the vagina treated at the index surgery or no pessary use since index surgery ('treated segment' refers to the target compartments in this study, which are the anterior and apical compartments)
Measured: 36 months
Incidence of Complications
Incidence of the following device-related or procedure-related adverse events (AEs): pelvic pain, infection, vaginal shortening, atypical vaginal discharge, neuromuscular problems, vaginal scarring, de novo vaginal bleeding, fistula formation and/or de novo voiding dysfunction.
Measured: 36 Months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Sep 2013 (estimated)
- Study start10 Feb 2014
- Primary completion12 Feb 2020
- Study completion12 Feb 2020
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.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Pelvic Organ ProlapseStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Boston Scientific CorporationThe 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 374 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Boston Scientific Corporation
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Peter Rosenblatt, MD, Principal investigator, Mount Auburn Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01945580
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- U9920
- Other IDs
- AUGS PFD Outcome Registry
- Acronym
- Xenform
- Status last verified
- Mar 2021
- First submitted
- 15 Sep 2013
- Last updated
- 14 Apr 2021
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Lipetskaia L, Gonzalez RR, Wu JM, Northington GM, Henley BR, Lane F, Brucker BM, Jarnagin B, Rosenblatt PL. Thirty-six-month Prospective Study of Transvaginal Bovine Graft vs Native Tissue Repair for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Urology. 2022 Sep;167:234-240. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.003. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
PubMed 35716871
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Apr 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- A Prospective, Non-Randomized, Parallel Cohort, Multi-Center Study of Xenform vs. Native Tissue for the Treatment of Women With Anterior/Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01945580
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Xenform / U9920
- Conditions
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Keywords
- POP, Transvaginal, Native Tissue Repair, Repair Augmented with Mesh, Biologic Graft, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 374 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Boston Scientific CorporationIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- 10 Feb 2014 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 12 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 12 Feb 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 18 Sep 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 14 Apr 2021
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To compare transvaginal repair with a biologic graft to traditional native tissue repair in women surgically treated for anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse.
Detailed description
The primary objective is to evaluate clinical effectiveness of transvaginal repair with Xenform against traditional native tissue repair in women surgically treated for anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary objectives are to evaluate Xenform-related complications and subject reported outcomes.
The primary endpoint of the study is to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform over native tissue repair at 36 months as compared to baseline. Success will be based on a composite of objective and subjective measures.
Additionally, a co-primary endpoint of the study is to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform to native tissue repair for safety by comparing rates of serious device or serious procedure related complications between baseline and the 36 month time point.
The secondary endpoints of the study include assessments of complications and subject reported outcomes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Xenform | Active comparator | Procedure: Prolapse RepairProlapse Repair with Xenform Soft Tissue Repair Matrix |
| Control | Active comparator | Procedure: Prolapse RepairProlapse Repair with Native Tissue Only |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Subject is female
- Subject is at least 18 years of age
- Subject has pelvic organ prolapse with the leading edge at or beyond the hymen. At or beyond the hymen is defined as POP-Q scores of Ba≥0 (for prolapse of the anterior compartment alone) or C≥0 (for prolapse of the apical compartment alone) or C≥-1/2 TVL and Ba≥0 (for a multi-compartment prolapse that includes the anterior and apical compartments).
- Subject reports a bothersome bulge they can see or feel per PFDI-20, question 3, response of 2 or higher (i.e., responses of "somewhat", "moderately", or "quite a bit")
- Subject or subject's legally authorized representative is willing to provide written informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (15 listed)
- Subject is pregnant or intends to become pregnant during the study
- Subject has an active or chronic systemic infection including any gynecologic infection, untreated urinary tract infection (UTI) or tissue necrosis
- Subject has history of pelvic organ cancer (e.g. uterine, ovarian, bladder, colo-rectal or cervical)
- Subject has had prior or is currently undergoing radiation, laser therapy, or chemotherapy in the pelvic area
- Subject has taken systemic steroids (within the last month), or immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory treatment (within the last 3 months)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Prolapse RepairAlso: Transvaginal, Prolapse, POP Repair, AnteriorTransvaginal anterior/apical pelvic organ prolapse repair | Procedure or surgery | Control, Xenform |
Primary outcome
Number of Participants With Success at 36 Months
Time frame: 36 Months
The primary endpoint of the study was to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal repair with Xenform over NTR at 36 months as compared to baseline. Success was based on a composite of objective and subjective measures. 1. Subjective success was achieved if the patient denied symptoms of vaginal bulging per Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) question 3, answering "no" or "yes" but "Not at all" bothersome (< 2). 2. Anatomic success (in the operated compartment): * Anterior segment: Leading edge of anterior prolapse was at or above the hymen or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) point Ba ≤ 0. * Apical segment: The vaginal apex did not descend more than one-half into the vaginal canal (i.e., POP-Q point C < -1/2 TVL) for multi-compartment prolapse or POP-Q point C ≤ 0 for single compartment apical prolapse. 3. No retreatment for POP: no additional surgical treatment for POP in the segment(s) of the vagina treated at the index surgery or no pessary use
Number of Participants With One or More Serious Device-related and/or Procedure-Related Adverse Events
Time frame: 36 months
Co-primary endpoint of the study was to achieve non-inferiority of transvaginal mesh repair with Xenform to NTR for safety by comparing rates of serious device-related or serious procedure-related complications between baseline and the 36-month time point.
11 secondary outcomes
Number of Participants With Mesh Erosion
Time frame: 36 months
Number of Participants With Mesh Exposure
Time frame: 36 Months
Number of Participants With de Novo Dyspareunia
Time frame: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes Measured With the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7)]
Time frame: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes Measured by the Pelvic Floor Symptoms Per the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20)
Time frame: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes Measured by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ-12)
Time frame: 36 months
Subject Specific Outcomes: Pain Measured by the TOMUS Pain Scale
Time frame: 36 months
Subject Improvement Measured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement for Prolapse (PGI-I)
Time frame: 36 months
Number of Participants With Re-Intervention or Re-Surgery
Time frame: 36 months
Surgical Success
Time frame: 36 months
Incidence of Complications
Time frame: 36 Months
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Apr 2021.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 35716871Lipetskaia L, Gonzalez RR, Wu JM, Northington GM, Henley BR, Lane F, Brucker BM, Jarnagin B, Rosenblatt PL. Thirty-six-month Prospective Study of Transvaginal Bovine Graft vs Native Tissue Repair for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Urology. 2022 Sep;167:234-240. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2022.06.003. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
Related trials for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Recruiting
Pelvic Floor Muscle Training During Pregnancy
Urinary Incontinence, Anal Incontinence
Not yet recruiting
Perineal Protection Device for Reducing Perineal Trauma During Vaginal Delivery in First-time Mothers: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, Perineal Laceration
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Suzetrigine Following Urogynecologic Surgery: Investigation of Postoperative Pain Management
Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), Postoperative Pain
Active, not recruiting
Patient-Centered Outcomes in the Surgical Treatment of Uterovaginal Prolapse
Uterine Prolapse
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Clinical Outcomes of Rectopexy for Rectal Prolapse
Rectal Prolapse, Fecal Incontinence
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.
Peter Rosenblatt, MD principal investigator
Mount Auburn Hospital
25 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Prolapse Repair in people with Pelvic Organ Prolapse, run by Boston Scientific Corporation at 25 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 6 inclusion and 15 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 14 Apr 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 25 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. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 14 Apr 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?
Number of Participants With Success at 36 Months (time frame: 36 Months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. 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 NCT01945580, 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 14 Apr 2021.