Efficacy and Safety of Dexlansoprazole MR on Maintaining Healing in Subjects With Healed Erosive Esophagitis

NCT ID: NCT00255164

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 (this study, NCT00255164) and T-EE04-087 (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 Kapidex Dexilant 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 TEE04-085 (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_DIRECTOR

Takeda

Locations

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

Alabaster, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Huntsville, Alabama, United States

Site Status

Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Scottsdale, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Tucson, Arizona, United States

Site Status

Anaheim, California, United States

Site Status

Chula Vista, California, United States

Site Status

Fullerton, California, United States

Site Status

Garden Grove, California, United States

Site Status

Irvine, California, United States

Site Status

Lancaster, California, United States

Site Status

Long Beach, California, United States

Site Status

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Mission Hills, California, United States

Site Status

Palm Springs, California, United States

Site Status

Redwood City, California, United States

Site Status

San Diego, California, United States

Site Status

San Luis Obispo, California, United States

Site Status

Boulder, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Lone Tree, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Wheat Ridge, Colorado, United States

Site Status

Waterbury, Connecticut, United States

Site Status

Boynton Beach, Florida, United States

Site Status

Jacksonville, Florida, United States

Site Status

Jupiter, Florida, United States

Site Status

Kissimmee, Florida, United States

Site Status

Lakeland, Florida, United States

Site Status

New Port Richey, Florida, United States

Site Status

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

Site Status

Honolulu, Hawaii, United States

Site Status

Arlington Heights, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Chicago, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Hines, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Oak Park, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Rockford, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Clive, Iowa, United States

Site Status

Dubuque, Iowa, United States

Site Status

Newton, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Shawnee Mission, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Topeka, Kansas, United States

Site Status

Metairie, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Shreveport, Louisiana, United States

Site Status

Hollywood, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Lutherville, Maryland, United States

Site Status

Troy, Michigan, United States

Site Status

Chaska, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Jackson, Mississippi, United States

Site Status

Mexico, Missouri, United States

Site Status

St Louis, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Washington, Missouri, United States

Site Status

Omaha, Nebraska, United States

Site Status

Pahrump, Nevada, United States

Site Status

New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States

Site Status

Bingampton, New York, United States

Site Status

Brooklyn, New York, United States

Site Status

Great Neck, New York, United States

Site Status

Rochester, New York, United States

Site Status

Charlotte, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Elkin, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Greensboro, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Hickory, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Salisbury, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Statesville, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States

Site Status

Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Mayfield Heights, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Warren, Ohio, United States

Site Status

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States

Site Status

Portland, Oregon, United States

Site Status

Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Duncansville, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Lansdale, Pennsylvania, United States

Site Status

Bristol, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Chattanooga, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Hermitage, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Site Status

Austin, Texas, United States

Site Status

Beaumont, Texas, United States

Site Status

Bedford, Texas, United States

Site Status

Bryan, Texas, United States

Site Status

Corsicana, Texas, United States

Site Status

El Paso, Texas, United States

Site Status

Fort Worth, Texas, United States

Site Status

Houston, Texas, United States

Site Status

San Antonio, Texas, United States

Site Status

Bountiful, Utah, United States

Site Status

Ogden, Utah, United States

Site Status

Salt Lake City, Utah, United States

Site Status

West Jordan, Utah, United States

Site Status

Chesapeake, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Danville, Virginia, United States

Site Status

Spokane, Washington, United States

Site Status

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States

Site Status

Monroe, 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)

Peura DA, Metz DC, Dabholkar AH, Paris MM, Yu P, Atkinson SN. Safety profile of dexlansoprazole MR, a proton pump inhibitor with a novel dual delayed release formulation: global clinical trial experience. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Nov 15;30(10):1010-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.04137.x. Epub 2009 Sep 4.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 19735233 (View on PubMed)

Wyrwich KW, Mody R, Larsen LM, Lee M, Harnam N, Revicki DA. Validation of the PAGI-SYM and PAGI-QOL among healing and maintenance of erosive esophagitis clinical trial participants. Qual Life Res. 2010 May;19(4):551-64. doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9620-x. Epub 2010 Feb 27.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 20195905 (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.

U1111-1114-1355

Identifier Type: REGISTRY

Identifier Source: secondary_id

T-EE04-086

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

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