Climacteric : the journal of the International Menopause Society · 2015
Effect of ospemifene on moderate or severe symptoms of vulvar and vaginal atrophy.
Клиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bruyniks N, Nappi R E, Castelo-Branco C, de Villiers T J, Simon J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether assessment of all moderate-to-severe symptoms at baseline gives a more accurate evaluation of the treatment effect of ospemifene in vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) than the most bothersome symptom (MBS) approach.
METHODS: Data were pooled from two pivotal phase-III clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of oral ospemifene 60 mg/day for the treatment of symptoms of VVA (n = 1463 subjects). Symptoms of vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching reported as moderate or severe at baseline were evaluated. Clinically relevant differences between ospemifene and placebo were analyzed using a four-point severity scoring system and presented as improvement, substantial improvement, or relief.
RESULTS: Subjects in these studies reported statistically significant improvement, substantial improvement, and relief for vaginal dryness (p < 0.00001), dyspareunia (p < 0.001) and statistically significant improvement and relief for vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching (p < 0.01) from baseline to week 12 with ospemifene compared with placebo. A similar trend was observed for women who reported substantial improvement of vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching.
CONCLUSIONS: For drug registration purposes, the use of the MBS model is appealing because of its simplicity and ease of scientific validation. However, the MBS model may underestimate the total magnitude of the clinical benefit of ospemifene treatment for symptomatic women suffering from VVA.
METHODS: Data were pooled from two pivotal phase-III clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of oral ospemifene 60 mg/day for the treatment of symptoms of VVA (n = 1463 subjects). Symptoms of vaginal dryness, dyspareunia, and vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching reported as moderate or severe at baseline were evaluated. Clinically relevant differences between ospemifene and placebo were analyzed using a four-point severity scoring system and presented as improvement, substantial improvement, or relief.
RESULTS: Subjects in these studies reported statistically significant improvement, substantial improvement, and relief for vaginal dryness (p < 0.00001), dyspareunia (p < 0.001) and statistically significant improvement and relief for vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching (p < 0.01) from baseline to week 12 with ospemifene compared with placebo. A similar trend was observed for women who reported substantial improvement of vaginal and/or vulvar irritation/itching.
CONCLUSIONS: For drug registration purposes, the use of the MBS model is appealing because of its simplicity and ease of scientific validation. However, the MBS model may underestimate the total magnitude of the clinical benefit of ospemifene treatment for symptomatic women suffering from VVA.