Comparison of Dexlansoprazole MR to Placebo on the Ability to Maintain Healing in Subjects With Healed Erosive Esophagitis

NCT ID: NCT00255151

Last Updated: 2012-02-03

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

451 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2006-01-31

Study Completion Date

2006-11-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The purpose of this study is to assess the ability of once-daily (QD) treatment with Dexlansoprazole modified-release (MR) 60 mg and 90 mg and placebo in maintaining healing of erosive esophagitis (EE).

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

This is a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multi-center, placebo-controlled, 6 month maintenance study. The study is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of daily Dexlansoprazole MR (60 mg and 90 mg) with that of placebo, in maintaining healing of erosive esophagitis.

Because the development plan for Dexlansoprazole MR formulation was revised, the results of 2 identical studies, T-EE04-086 (NCT00255164) and T-EE04-087 (this study, NCT00255151), were combined and analyzed as a single larger study referred to as study T-EE04-086. A total of 451 subjects were included in the combined analysis: 237 subjects were enrolled into Study T-EE04-086, and 214 subjects were enrolled into Study T-EE04-087.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Esophagitis, Reflux Esophagitis, Peptic

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

TRIPLE

Participants Investigators Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg QD

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Dexlansoprazole MR

Intervention Type DRUG

Dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg, capsules, orally, once daily for up to six months.

Dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg QD

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Dexlansoprazole MR

Intervention Type DRUG

Dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg, capsules, orally, once daily for up to six months.

Placebo

Group Type PLACEBO_COMPARATOR

Placebo

Intervention Type DRUG

Dexlansoprazole placebo-matching capsules, orally, once daily for up to six months.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Dexlansoprazole MR

Dexlansoprazole MR 60 mg, capsules, orally, once daily for up to six months.

Intervention Type DRUG

Dexlansoprazole MR

Dexlansoprazole MR 90 mg, capsules, orally, once daily for up to six months.

Intervention Type DRUG

Placebo

Dexlansoprazole placebo-matching capsules, orally, once daily for up to six months.

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

TAK-390MR Dexilant Kapidex TAK-390MR Kapidex Dexilant

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Subjects must have successfully completed the Phase 3 Study T-EE04-084 (NCT00251693) or T-EE04-085 (NCT00251719); and have healed esophageal erosions proven by endoscopy. Complete healing was assessed for change in LA Esophagitis Classification grades A, B, C, or D to healed (defined as anything less than the criterion for Grade A). The subject was counted as healed if endoscopy findings did not meet the Grade A criterion.

Exclusion Criteria

* Use of prescription or nonprescription proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine (H2) receptor antagonists, sucralfate, misoprostol, or prokinetics throughout the study
* Use of antacids (except for study supplied) throughout the study.
* Subjects using drugs with significant anticholinergic effects such as tricyclics who cannot stay on a stable dose throughout the study.
* Need for continuous anticoagulant therapy.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Takeda

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Responsibility Role SPONSOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Medical Director

Role: STUDY_CHAIR

Takeda

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Anniston, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Hueytown, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Huntsville, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Tallassee, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Tucson, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Little Rock, Arkansas, United States

Site Status

North Little Rock, Arkansas, United States

Site Status

Azusa, California, United States

Site Status

Carmichael, California, United States

Site Status

Cypress, California, United States

Site Status

Fresno, California, United States

Site Status

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Modesto, California, United States

Site Status

Newport Beach, California, United States

Site Status

Oakland, California, United States

Site Status

Orange, California, United States

Site Status

San Diego, California, United States

Site Status

Santa Maria, California, United States

Site Status

Littleton, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Longmont, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Wheat Ridge, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Bristol, Connecticut, United States

Site Status

Newark, Delaware, United States

Site Status

Fort Myers, Florida, United States

Site Status

Miami, Florida, United States

Site Status

Naples, Florida, United States

Site Status

New Smyrna Beach, Florida, United States

Site Status

Ocala, Florida, United States

Site Status

Pembroke Pines, Florida, United States

Site Status

Port Orange, Florida, United States

Site Status

Sarasota, Florida, United States

Site Status

St. Petersburg, Florida, United States

Site Status

Zephyrhills, Florida, United States

Site Status

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Champaign, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Moline, Illinois, United States

Site Status

North Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Oak Forest, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Springfield, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Evansville, Indiana, United States

Site Status

Indianapolis, Indiana, United States

Site Status

Newburgh, Indiana, United States

Site Status

Davenport, Iowa, United States

Site Status

Kansas City, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Wichita, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Lexington, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Louisville, Kentucky, United States

Site Status

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Chevy Chase, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Prince Frederick, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Jackson, Mississippi, United States

Site Status

Jefferson City, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Kansas City, Missouri, United States

Site Status

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Missoula, Montana, United States

Site Status

Egg Harbor, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States

Site Status

Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Charlotte, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Greensboro, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

High Point, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Raleigh, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Wilmington, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Bismarck, North Dakota, United States

Site Status

Akron, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Columbus, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Dayton, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Mogadore, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Medford, Oregon, United States

Site Status

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Warwick, Rhode Island, United States

Site Status

Anderson, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, United States

Site Status

Sioux Falls, South Dakota, United States

Site Status

Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Germantown, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Jackson, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Johnson City, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Kingsport, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Amarillo, Texas, United States

Site Status

Conroe, Texas, United States

Site Status

Dallas, Texas, United States

Site Status

Fort Worth, Texas, United States

Site Status

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

Odessa, Texas, United States

Site Status

Pharr, Texas, United States

Site Status

Seguin, Texas, United States

Site Status

Temple, Texas, United States

Site Status

Salt Lake City, Utah, United States

Site Status

Charlottesville, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Norfolk, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Richmond, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Bellevue, Washington, United States

Site Status

Lakewood, Washington, United States

Site Status

Tacoma, Washington, United States

Site Status

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Howden CW, Larsen LM, Perez MC, Palmer R, Atkinson SN. Clinical trial: efficacy and safety of dexlansoprazole MR 60 and 90 mg in healed erosive oesophagitis - maintenance of healing and symptom relief. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Nov 1;30(9):895-907. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04119.x. Epub 2009 Aug 14.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 19681809 (View on PubMed)

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

U1111-1114-1767

Identifier Type: REGISTRY

Identifier Source: secondary_id

T-EE04-087

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.