Chronic PainPhase 2/3NCT02902796
Comparison of 1000 Hertz (Hz), Burst, and Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Pain Relief
A Phase 2/3 study testing Spinal cord stimulator in people with Chronic Pain, run by The Center for Clinical Research, Winston-Salem, NC at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
A randomized controlled with cross over study compares efficacy of burst stimulation, 1000 hertz stimulation, and standard stimulation in an non-superiority trial. The study duration is approximately 24 weeks and each stimulation modes will last for approximately 3 weeks with approximately 4 days of wash off in… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 75 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Chronic Pain
- What is being tested?
- Spinal cord stimulator
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Sep 2016to Dec 2019
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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 75 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Subject must be 18 years and older, and younger than 75 years of age.
- Subject has had a Precision Spectra, or Plus spinal cord stimulator system implanted for chronic painful condition.
- Subject continues to receive adequate pain relief with greater than or equal to 50% pain relief based on pre-trial and pre-implant pain assessment.
- Device age should not be less than 2 months old.
- Subject is willing to comply with all requirements of the study.
Who cannot join
- Subjects who are getting <50% pain relief on current SCS based on pre-trial and pre-implant pain assessment.
- Currently diagnosed with cognitive impairment, or exhibits any characteristic, that would limit study candidate's ability to assess pain
- Unstable medical or psychiatric illness
- Urine drug screen shows controlled substance/s not prescribed by the prescribers.
- Lifetime history of psychosis, hypomania, or mania.
- Epilepsy, or dementia
Show all 10Show fewer
- Substance abuse in the last 6 months
- Pregnant or breastfeeding
- Not on contraception for those of childbearing age. (Barrier methods, oral contraception, hormone injections, or surgical sterilization)
- Treatment with investigational drug within 30 days of screening.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Randomized Controlled Cross Over Study to Compare the Efficacy of 1000 Hertz (Hz), Burst, and Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Axial Pain Relief
A randomized controlled with cross over study compares efficacy of burst stimulation, 1000 hertz stimulation, and standard stimulation in an non-superiority trial. The study duration is approximately 24 weeks and each stimulation modes will last for approximately 3 weeks with approximately 4 days of wash off in between.
Read the detailed description
Study will enroll 22 patients for the purpose of evaluation of efficacy of burst stimulation, 1000 hertz frequency stimulation or standard stimulation in patients who have a spinal cord stimulators implanted. Each patients will be randomized to either group A or B, where each groups consists of Burst, standard, and 1000 hertz frequency stimulation or vice versa with wash off period in between. The duration for each stimulation modes will be approximately 3 weeks, with approximately 4 days of wash off prior to starting the new stimulation mode and in between stimulation modes. Treatment duration for each groups will last about 3 months or less, and with cross over total duration of the study is about 6 months in total.
During the trial there will be 13 visits. The first visit will consist of screening visit activities and once the eligibility of the subjects are confirmed, they will be randomized and they can start the study immediately and begin their wash off period. After the initial visit/ randomization visit, there will be 12 follow up visits. At each visit, patients will be assessed for their pain, disability index, and their perception of their painful condition, as well as any adverse events and changes of medication usage or lack there of. At the end of the study, the data will be pooled to look at the pain level, disability index, and patients perceived changes in their painful condition for each treatment groups (Burst stimulation, 1000 hertz stimulation and standard stimulation) to determine if subject experienced equivocal pain relief from all three stimulation modes.
- Conditions
- Chronic Pain
- Being tested
- Spinal cord stimulator
- Medical subject headings
- Chronic Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Spinal cord stimulatorDevice
Spinal cord stimulator will be programmed to deliver, according to the randomization status of the patient, burst, 1000 hertz, and standard stimulation during each treatment group.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment group A | Active comparator | Group A will consist of sequence of treatment with 3 stimulation modes. They are, in order, 1000 hertz, standard, and burst stimulation. Each stimulation modes will last 3 weeks, with 4 days of wash off between them. Each group treatments will take about 3 months, and subject will cross over into the other treatment group. Burst stimulation sends packets of electrical pulses, composed of pulse and packet frequency. 1000 hertz stimulation delivers tonic, sub perception stimulation. The standard stimulation mode, which will serve as the control, will be below 100 hertz, and its pulse strength will be above threshold, where patients will feel the tingling from the electrical pulses generated by the spinal cord stimulator. Receives: Device: Spinal cord stimulator |
| Treatment group B | Active comparator | Group B will consist of sequence of treatment with 3 stimulation modes. They are, in order, burst stimulation, standard, and 1000 hertz. Each stimulation modes will last 3 weeks, with 4 days of wash off between them. Each group treatments will take about 3 months, and subject will cross over into the other treatment group. Burst stimulation sends packets of electrical pulses, composed of pulse and packet frequency. 1000 hertz stimulation delivers tonic, sub perception stimulation. The standard stimulation mode, which will serve as the control, will be below 100 hertz, and its pulse strength will be above threshold, where patients will feel the tingling from the electrical pulses generated by the spinal cord stimulator. Receives: Device: Spinal cord stimulator |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
NPRS
Pain rating on 10 point digital scale for average, best, worst, during last week, and current pain level to be collected at each follow up visits. Collected data for each stimulation modes will be compared against each other to assess efficacy of 1000 hertz, and burst stimulation against each other and against the standard stimulation to look for differences in pain rating among three stimulation modes. Data comparison will occur at the end of the study, which is expected to last about 6 months.
Measured: 3 weeks, and 4 days
Secondary outcomes (3)
Oswestry Disability Index
Set of questionnaires designed to assess the level of disability in chronic pain patients. Each patients will be assessed with this questionnaires at each follow up visits. Collected data for each stimulation modes will be compared against each other to assess effects of 1000 hertz, and burst stimulation against each other and against the standard stimulation on Oswestry Disability Index, and changes if any.
Measured: 3 weeks, and 4 days
Patients Global Impression of Change
Patient's assessment of the improvement or worsening of their painful condition during the study, and these will be collected at each follow up visits. Collected data for each stimulation modes will be compared against each other to assess effects of 1000 hertz, and burst stimulation against each other and against the standard stimulation on PGIC scores, and changes if any.
Measured: 3 weeks, and 4 days
Preferability Survey
subject preference of one stimulation program out of 3 received
Measured: 3, and 6 months; at the completion of each treatment groups.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted16 Sep 2016 (estimated)
- Study startSep 2016
- Primary completionSep 2019 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2019 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (13)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Chronic PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- 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 2/3
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- The Center for Clinical Research, Winston-Salem, NC
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- James North, MD, Principal investigator, The Center for Clinical Research
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02902796
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- IIR-2016-01
- Status last verified
- Jan 2018
- First submitted
- 31 Aug 2016
- Last updated
- 31 Jan 2019
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: No individual data will be shared. Only the pooled data will be shared with public and at the scientific meetings.
Publications
Simpson BA. Spinal cord stimulation. Br J Neurosurg. 1997 Feb;11(1):5-11. doi: 10.1080/02688699746627. No abstract available.
PubMed 9156011De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Plazier M, van der Loo E, Menovsky T. Burst spinal cord stimulation: toward paresthesia-free pain suppression. Neurosurgery. 2010 May;66(5):986-90. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000368153.44883.B3.
PubMed 20404705De Ridder D, Plazier M, Kamerling N, Menovsky T, Vanneste S. Burst spinal cord stimulation for limb and back pain. World Neurosurg. 2013 Nov;80(5):642-649.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.040. Epub 2013 Jan 12.
PubMed 23321375Schu S, Slotty PJ, Bara G, von Knop M, Edgar D, Vesper J. A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation patterns for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Neuromodulation. 2014 Jul;17(5):443-50. doi: 10.1111/ner.12197. Epub 2014 Jun 19.
PubMed 24945621De Ridder D, Vancamp T, Lenders MW, De Vos CC, Vanneste S. Is preoperative pain duration important in spinal cord stimulation? A comparison between tonic and burst stimulation. Neuromodulation. 2015 Jan;18(1):13-7; discussion 17. doi: 10.1111/ner.12253. Epub 2014 Oct 21.
PubMed 25334057Kriek N, Groeneweg G, Huygen FJ. Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation in a Patient with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A 2-year Follow-Up. Pain Pract. 2015 Jul;15(6):E59-64. doi: 10.1111/papr.12295. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
PubMed 25858033Crosby ND, Goodman Keiser MD, Smith JR, Zeeman ME, Winkelstein BA. Stimulation parameters define the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation in a rat model of neuropathic pain. Neuromodulation. 2015 Jan;18(1):1-8; discussion 8. doi: 10.1111/ner.12221. Epub 2014 Aug 21.
PubMed 25145400Van Havenbergh T, Vancamp T, Van Looy P, Vanneste S, De Ridder D. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back pain patients: 500-Hz vs. 1000-Hz burst stimulation. Neuromodulation. 2015 Jan;18(1):9-12; discussion 12. doi: 10.1111/ner.12252. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
PubMed 25339436de Vos CC, Bom MJ, Vanneste S, Lenders MW, de Ridder D. Burst spinal cord stimulation evaluated in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic neuropathy. Neuromodulation. 2014 Feb;17(2):152-9. doi: 10.1111/ner.12116. Epub 2013 Sep 24.
PubMed 24655043De Ridder D, Lenders MW, De Vos CC, Dijkstra-Scholten C, Wolters R, Vancamp T, Van Looy P, Van Havenbergh T, Vanneste S. A 2-center comparative study on tonic versus burst spinal cord stimulation: amount of responders and amount of pain suppression. Clin J Pain. 2015 May;31(5):433-7. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000129.
PubMed 24977394Kriek N, Groeneweg JG, Stronks DL, Huygen FJ. Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Aug 25;16:222. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0650-y.
PubMed 26303326Ito S, Sugiura T, Azami T, Sasano H, Sobue K. Spinal cord stimulation for a woman with complex regional pain syndrome who wished to get pregnant. J Anesth. 2013 Feb;27(1):124-7. doi: 10.1007/s00540-012-1462-y. Epub 2012 Aug 15.
PubMed 23011119Yoo HS, Nahm FS, Yim KH, Moon JY, Kim YS, Lee PB. Pregnancy in woman with spinal cord stimulator for complex regional pain syndrome: a case report and review of the literature. Korean J Pain. 2010 Dec;23(4):266-9. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2010.23.4.266. Epub 2010 Dec 1.
PubMed 21217892
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 31 Jan 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Randomized Controlled Cross Over Study to Compare the Efficacy of 1000 Hertz (Hz), Burst, and Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Axial Pain Relief
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02902796
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IIR-2016-01
- Conditions
- Chronic Pain
- Phase
- Phase 2/3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- The Center for Clinical Research, Winston-Salem, NCUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Sep 2016
- Primary completion
- Sep 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2019 (estimated)
- First posted
- 16 Sep 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
A randomized controlled with cross over study compares efficacy of burst stimulation, 1000 hertz stimulation, and standard stimulation in an non-superiority trial. The study duration is approximately 24 weeks and each stimulation modes will last for approximately 3 weeks with approximately 4 days of wash off in between.
Detailed description
Study will enroll 22 patients for the purpose of evaluation of efficacy of burst stimulation, 1000 hertz frequency stimulation or standard stimulation in patients who have a spinal cord stimulators implanted. Each patients will be randomized to either group A or B, where each groups consists of Burst, standard, and 1000 hertz frequency stimulation or vice versa with wash off period in between. The duration for each stimulation modes will be approximately 3 weeks, with approximately 4 days of wash off prior to starting the new stimulation mode and in between stimulation modes. Treatment duration for each groups will last about 3 months or less, and with cross over total duration of the study is about 6 months in total.
During the trial there will be 13 visits. The first visit will consist of screening visit activities and once the eligibility of the subjects are confirmed, they will be randomized and they can start the study immediately and begin their wash off period. After the initial visit/ randomization visit, there will be 12 follow up visits. At each visit, patients will be assessed for their pain, disability index, and their perception of their painful condition, as well as any adverse events and changes of medication usage or lack there of. At the end of the study, the data will be pooled to look at the pain level, disability index, and patients perceived changes in their painful condition for each treatment groups (Burst stimulation, 1000 hertz stimulation and standard stimulation) to determine if subject experienced equivocal pain relief from all three stimulation modes.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Diagnosis
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment group A | Active comparator | Device: Spinal cord stimulatorGroup A will consist of sequence of treatment with 3 stimulation modes. They are, in order, 1000 hertz, standard, and burst stimulation. Each stimulation modes will last 3 weeks, with 4 days of wash off between them. Each group treatments will take about 3 months, and subject will cross over into the other treatment group. Burst stimulation sends packets of electrical pulses, composed of pulse and packet frequency. 1000 hertz stimulation delivers tonic, sub perception stimulation. The standard stimulation mode, which will serve as the control, will be below 100 hertz, and its pulse strength will be above threshold, where patients will feel the tingling from the electrical pulses generated by the spinal cord stimulator. |
| Treatment group B | Active comparator | Device: Spinal cord stimulatorGroup B will consist of sequence of treatment with 3 stimulation modes. They are, in order, burst stimulation, standard, and 1000 hertz. Each stimulation modes will last 3 weeks, with 4 days of wash off between them. Each group treatments will take about 3 months, and subject will cross over into the other treatment group. Burst stimulation sends packets of electrical pulses, composed of pulse and packet frequency. 1000 hertz stimulation delivers tonic, sub perception stimulation. The standard stimulation mode, which will serve as the control, will be below 100 hertz, and its pulse strength will be above threshold, where patients will feel the tingling from the electrical pulses generated by the spinal cord stimulator. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Subject must be 18 years and older, and younger than 75 years of age.
- Subject has had a Precision Spectra, or Plus spinal cord stimulator system implanted for chronic painful condition.
- Subject continues to receive adequate pain relief with greater than or equal to 50% pain relief based on pre-trial and pre-implant pain assessment.
- Device age should not be less than 2 months old.
- Subject is willing to comply with all requirements of the study.
Key exclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Subjects who are getting <50% pain relief on current SCS based on pre-trial and pre-implant pain assessment.
- Currently diagnosed with cognitive impairment, or exhibits any characteristic, that would limit study candidate's ability to assess pain
- Unstable medical or psychiatric illness
- Urine drug screen shows controlled substance/s not prescribed by the prescribers.
- Lifetime history of psychosis, hypomania, or mania.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Spinal cord stimulatorSpinal cord stimulator will be programmed to deliver, according to the randomization status of the patient, burst, 1000 hertz, and standard stimulation during each treatment group. | Device | Treatment group A, Treatment group B |
Primary outcome
NPRS
Time frame: 3 weeks, and 4 days
Pain rating on 10 point digital scale for average, best, worst, during last week, and current pain level to be collected at each follow up visits. Collected data for each stimulation modes will be compared against each other to assess efficacy of 1000 hertz, and burst stimulation against each other and against the standard stimulation to look for differences in pain rating among three stimulation modes. Data comparison will occur at the end of the study, which is expected to last about 6 months.
3 secondary outcomes
Oswestry Disability Index
Time frame: 3 weeks, and 4 days
Patients Global Impression of Change
Time frame: 3 weeks, and 4 days
Preferability Survey
Time frame: 3, and 6 months; at the completion of each treatment groups.
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 31 Jan 2019.
- Background: PubMed 9156011Simpson BA. Spinal cord stimulation. Br J Neurosurg. 1997 Feb;11(1):5-11. doi: 10.1080/02688699746627. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 20404705De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Plazier M, van der Loo E, Menovsky T. Burst spinal cord stimulation: toward paresthesia-free pain suppression. Neurosurgery. 2010 May;66(5):986-90. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000368153.44883.B3.
- Background: PubMed 23321375De Ridder D, Plazier M, Kamerling N, Menovsky T, Vanneste S. Burst spinal cord stimulation for limb and back pain. World Neurosurg. 2013 Nov;80(5):642-649.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2013.01.040. Epub 2013 Jan 12.
- Background: PubMed 24945621Schu S, Slotty PJ, Bara G, von Knop M, Edgar D, Vesper J. A prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation patterns for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Neuromodulation. 2014 Jul;17(5):443-50. doi: 10.1111/ner.12197. Epub 2014 Jun 19.
- Background: PubMed 25334057De Ridder D, Vancamp T, Lenders MW, De Vos CC, Vanneste S. Is preoperative pain duration important in spinal cord stimulation? A comparison between tonic and burst stimulation. Neuromodulation. 2015 Jan;18(1):13-7; discussion 17. doi: 10.1111/ner.12253. Epub 2014 Oct 21.
- Background: PubMed 25858033Kriek N, Groeneweg G, Huygen FJ. Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation in a Patient with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A 2-year Follow-Up. Pain Pract. 2015 Jul;15(6):E59-64. doi: 10.1111/papr.12295. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
- Background: PubMed 25145400Crosby ND, Goodman Keiser MD, Smith JR, Zeeman ME, Winkelstein BA. Stimulation parameters define the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation in a rat model of neuropathic pain. Neuromodulation. 2015 Jan;18(1):1-8; discussion 8. doi: 10.1111/ner.12221. Epub 2014 Aug 21.
- Background: PubMed 25339436Van Havenbergh T, Vancamp T, Van Looy P, Vanneste S, De Ridder D. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back pain patients: 500-Hz vs. 1000-Hz burst stimulation. Neuromodulation. 2015 Jan;18(1):9-12; discussion 12. doi: 10.1111/ner.12252. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
- Background: PubMed 24655043de Vos CC, Bom MJ, Vanneste S, Lenders MW, de Ridder D. Burst spinal cord stimulation evaluated in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic neuropathy. Neuromodulation. 2014 Feb;17(2):152-9. doi: 10.1111/ner.12116. Epub 2013 Sep 24.
- Background: PubMed 24977394De Ridder D, Lenders MW, De Vos CC, Dijkstra-Scholten C, Wolters R, Vancamp T, Van Looy P, Van Havenbergh T, Vanneste S. A 2-center comparative study on tonic versus burst spinal cord stimulation: amount of responders and amount of pain suppression. Clin J Pain. 2015 May;31(5):433-7. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000129.
- Background: PubMed 26303326Kriek N, Groeneweg JG, Stronks DL, Huygen FJ. Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Aug 25;16:222. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0650-y.
- Background: PubMed 23011119Ito S, Sugiura T, Azami T, Sasano H, Sobue K. Spinal cord stimulation for a woman with complex regional pain syndrome who wished to get pregnant. J Anesth. 2013 Feb;27(1):124-7. doi: 10.1007/s00540-012-1462-y. Epub 2012 Aug 15.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. No individual data will be shared. Only the pooled data will be shared with public and at the scientific meetings.
Related trials for Chronic Pain
Recruiting
Empowered Relief® for Cancer Survivors With Chronic Pain
Chronic Pain Due to Cancer, Pain Catastrophizing
RecruitingObservational study
Pain Phenotypes in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis
Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Lumbar Stabilization Exercises With and Without YTWL (Scapular Stabilization Exercises) on Reducing Chronic Low Back Pain and Related Disability. A Randomized Clinical Trial,
Chronic Non Specific Mechanical Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Comparing Non-Medicine Strategies for Improving Low Back Pain
Chronic Low-back Pain (cLBP), High-Impact Chronic Pain (HICP)
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Pectoral Nerve Block (PECS) Using Magnesium Sulfate Added to Dexamethasone on Quality of Recovery and Chronic Post-Mastectomy Pain
Breast Cancer, Postoperative Pain
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.
James North, MD principal investigator
The Center for Clinical Research
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2/3 study testing Spinal cord stimulator in people with Chronic Pain, run by The Center for Clinical Research, Winston-Salem, NC at 1 site 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 5 inclusion and 10 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 31 Jan 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site 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.
What does this combined 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.
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?
Results are not available in the source record.
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?
NPRS (time frame: 3 weeks, and 4 days). 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 NCT02902796, which also lists 13 linked publications.
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 31 Jan 2019.