Trial Outcomes & Findings for Maintenance Effect of Clobex Shampoo on Participants With Moderate to Severe Scalp Psoriasis (NCT NCT00400725)
NCT ID: NCT00400725
Last Updated: 2023-07-11
Results Overview
Time to first relapse was defined as the duration between baseline of maintenance phase and the visit where the relapse occurred. The first relapse was defined as the first time during the maintenance phase when participant presented with a GSS \>2.
COMPLETED
PHASE3
288 participants
Baseline up to 24 Weeks
2023-07-11
Participant Flow
The study was conducted at 12 sites in Canada from 29 September 2006 (first participant first visit) to 20 August 2007 (last participant last visit).
A total of 288 participants were enrolled in initial phase of the study, of which 225 participants were eligible to enter maintenance phase after completion of initial phase. Out of 225 eligible participants, only 217 participants (as 8 participants withdrew consent) were randomized and received treatment in the maintenance phase either in Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo group or Vehicle group.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Initial Phase:- Clobex® Shampoo
In initial open-label phase, participants were applied Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05 percent (%) weight by weight (W/W) topically to the scalp once daily (twice a week) for 4 weeks (weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 Milliliter\]).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (Global severity score \[GSS\] less than or equal to \[\<=\] 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05 percent (%) weight by weight (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose were not exceeded beyond 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (that is \[i.e.\], GSS greater than \[\>\] 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05%. After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase:Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (Global severity score \[GSS\] \<= 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose were not exceeded beyond 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (that is \[i.e.\], GSS \[greater than\] \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05 percent (%) weight by weight (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Initial Phase (up to 4 Weeks)
STARTED
|
288
|
0
|
0
|
|
Initial Phase (up to 4 Weeks)
COMPLETED
|
271
|
0
|
0
|
|
Initial Phase (up to 4 Weeks)
NOT COMPLETED
|
17
|
0
|
0
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
STARTED
|
0
|
106
|
111
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
COMPLETED
|
0
|
90
|
82
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
16
|
29
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Initial Phase:- Clobex® Shampoo
In initial open-label phase, participants were applied Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05 percent (%) weight by weight (W/W) topically to the scalp once daily (twice a week) for 4 weeks (weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 Milliliter\]).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (Global severity score \[GSS\] less than or equal to \[\<=\] 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05 percent (%) weight by weight (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose were not exceeded beyond 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (that is \[i.e.\], GSS greater than \[\>\] 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05%. After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase:Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (Global severity score \[GSS\] \<= 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose were not exceeded beyond 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (that is \[i.e.\], GSS \[greater than\] \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05 percent (%) weight by weight (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Initial Phase (up to 4 Weeks)
Adverse Event
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Initial Phase (up to 4 Weeks)
Withdrawal by Subject
|
14
|
0
|
0
|
|
Initial Phase (up to 4 Weeks)
Lost to Follow-up
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Initial Phase (up to 4 Weeks)
Other
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
Lack of Efficacy
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
Adverse Event
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
Withdrawal by Subject
|
0
|
11
|
21
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
Lost to Follow-up
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
|
Maintenance Phase (up to 6 Months)
Other
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
Baseline Characteristics
Maintenance Effect of Clobex Shampoo on Participants With Moderate to Severe Scalp Psoriasis
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
All Participants
n=288 Participants
In initial open-label phase, participants were applied Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% topically to the scalp once daily (twice a week) for 4 weeks (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<= 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W) or Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05%. After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
50.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.1 • n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
166 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
122 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Caucasian
|
265 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Black
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Asian
|
13 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Hispanic
|
6 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Other
|
3 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to 24 WeeksPopulation: ITT Population included the entire population who were enrolled and randomized (i.e., assigned a kit number).
Time to first relapse was defined as the duration between baseline of maintenance phase and the visit where the relapse occurred. The first relapse was defined as the first time during the maintenance phase when participant presented with a GSS \>2.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=106 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
n=111 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Maintenance Phase: Time to First Relapse
|
93.5 days
Standard Error 6.5
|
56.8 days
Standard Error 4.7
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2 and 4 LOCFPopulation: ITT Population included the entire population who were enrolled and randomized. (i.e., assigned a kit number).
Global severity score was evaluated on a scale of 0-4 and it was categorized as; Clear (score 0); no clinical signs or symptoms detected (hyperpigmentation or residual red coloration might be present), very mild (score 1); only very slight signs or symptoms detected (e.g., very fine scaling or slight erythema), mild (score 2); slight signs or symptoms detected (e.g., mild erythema and scaling, eventually associated to some barely detectable plaque elevation), moderate (score 3); moderate or clearly detectable signs or symptoms (e.g., definite redness with obvious scaling on a plaque that was elevated above skin level), severe (score 4); severe signs or symptoms detected (e.g., intense redness, profuse shedding, definite plaque thickness was most often present) where 0 indicates best and 4 indicates worst. Percentage of participants with GSS was reported. Missing Clobex® shampoo data were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=288 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Baseline: Score 2 (Mild)
|
0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Baseline: Score 4 (Severe)
|
41.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 2-LOCF: Score 0 (Clear)
|
2.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 2-LOCF: Score 1 (Very mild)
|
10.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 2-LOCF: Score 2 (Mild)
|
35.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 2-LOCF: Score 3 (Moderate)
|
43.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 2-LOCF: Score 4 (Severe)
|
9.0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 4-LOCF: Score 1 (Very mild)
|
25.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 4-LOCF: Score 2 (Mild)
|
45.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 4-LOCF: Score 3 (Moderate)
|
18.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 4-LOCF: Score 4 (Severe)
|
3.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Baseline: Score 0 (Clear)
|
0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Baseline: Score 1 (Very mild)
|
0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Baseline: Score 3 (Moderate)
|
58.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Global Severity Scores
Week 4-LOCF: Score 0 (Clear)
|
7.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2 and 4 LOCFPopulation: ITT Population included the entire population who were enrolled and randomized. (i.e., assigned a kit number).
Pruritus (itching sensation) score of were evaluated on a scale from 0 - 3 (0 = None \[no itching\], 1 = Mild \[slight itching\], not really bothersome), 2 = Moderate \[definite itching that is somewhat bothersome; without loss of sleep\], and 3 = severe \[intense itching that has caused pronounced discomfort; night rest interrupted and excoriations of the skin from scratching may be present\]) , where 0 indicates best and 3 indicates worst. Percentage of participants with pruritus score was reported. Missing Clobex® shampoo data were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=288 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Baseline: Score 0 (None)
|
3.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Baseline: Score 1 (Mild)
|
20.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Baseline: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
51.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Baseline: Score 3 (Severe)
|
23.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 2- LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
19.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 2- LOCF: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
23.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 2- LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
3.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 4- LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
35.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 4- LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
47.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 4- LOCF: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
15.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 4- LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
1.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Pruritus Scores
Week 2- LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
53.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2 and 4 LOCFPopulation: ITT Population included the entire population who were enrolled and randomized. (i.e., assigned a kit number).
Individual sign scores of erythema (abnormal redness of skin), scaling (scales attached to the scalp), plaque thickening (a thickening or elevation of a circumscribed lesion or plaque) were evaluated on a scale of 0-4; 0= none , 1= mild , 2=moderate , 3= severe, 4= very severe, where 0 indicates best and 4 indicates worst. Percentage of participants with individual signs (erythema, scaling, and plaque thickening) scores were reported. Missing Clobex® shampoo data were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=288 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Baseline: Score 0 (None)
|
0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Baseline: Score 1 (Mild)
|
1.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Baseline: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
47.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Baseline: Score 3 (Severe)
|
45.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Baseline: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
5.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 2 - LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
2.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 2 - LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
39.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 2 - LOCF : 2: Moderate
|
44.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 2 - LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
13.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 2 - LOCF: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
0.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 4 - LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
12.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 4 - LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
51.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 4 - LOCF: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
30.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 4 - LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
4.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Erythema at Week 4 - LOCF: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
0.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Baseline: Score 1 (Mild)
|
0.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Baseline: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
42.0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Baseline: Score 3 (Severe)
|
49.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 2-LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
5.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 2-LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
35.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 2-LOCF: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
45.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 2-LOCF: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
2.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 4-LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
14.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 4-LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
50.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 4-LOCF: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
30.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 4-LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
3.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 4-LOCF: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
1.0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Baseline: Score 0 (None)
|
0.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Baseline: score 1 (Mild)
|
4.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Baseline: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
54.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Baseline: Score 3 (Severe)
|
36.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Baseline: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
3.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 2-LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
10.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 2-LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
37.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 2-LOCF: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
43.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 2-LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
6.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 2- LOCF: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
1.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 4- LOCF: Score 0 (None)
|
23.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 4- LOCF: Score 1 (Mild)
|
49.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 4-LOCF: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
23.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 4- LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
2.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Baseline: Score 0 (None)
|
0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Baseline: Score 4: (Very Severe)
|
7.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Scaling at Week 2-LOCF: Score 3 (Severe)
|
10.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Initial Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores
Plaque Thickening at Week 4- LOCF: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
1.0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Population: ITT worstcase population signifies participants who prematurely discontinued before the time of first relapse were considered as relapse at following visit. Here, "number analyzed" refer to participants evaluable for this outcome at given timepoints.
The first relapse was defined as the first time during the maintenance phase when participant presented with a GSS \>2. Relapse was categorized into relapse or no relapse. Percentage of participants with relapse were reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=106 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
n=111 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants Who Had First Relapse
Maintenance Baseline : Relapse
|
0 percentage of participants
|
0 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants Who Had First Relapse
Week 16 : Relapse
|
62.9 percentage of participants
|
89.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants Who Had First Relapse
Week 20 : Relapse
|
66.7 percentage of participants
|
90.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants Who Had First Relapse
Week 24 : Relapse
|
68.9 percentage of participants
|
91.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants Who Had First Relapse
Week 4 : Relapse
|
41 percentage of participants
|
64.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants Who Had First Relapse
Week 8 : Relapse
|
52.8 percentage of participants
|
76.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants Who Had First Relapse
Week 12 : Relapse
|
55.7 percentage of participants
|
84.5 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 24Population: ITT worstcase population signifies participants who prematurely discontinued before the time of first relapse were considered as relapse at following visit. Overall number of participants analyzed refer to the participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
Pruritus (itching sensation) score of were evaluated on a scale from 0 - 3 (0 = None \[no itching\], 1 = Mild \[slight itching, not really bothersome\], 2 = Moderate \[definite itching that is somewhat bothersome; without loss of sleep\], and 3 = severe \[intense itching that has caused pronounced discomfort; night rest interrupted and excoriations of the skin from scratching may be present\]) , where 0 indicates best and 3 indicates worst. Percentage of participants with scalp psoriasis pruritus score at first relapse was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=68 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
n=97 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Scalp Psoriasis Pruritus Score at First Time of Relapse
0: None
|
13.2 percentage of participants
|
7.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Scalp Psoriasis Pruritus Score at First Time of Relapse
1: Mild
|
29.4 percentage of participants
|
26.8 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Scalp Psoriasis Pruritus Score at First Time of Relapse
2: Moderate
|
51.5 percentage of participants
|
52.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Scalp Psoriasis Pruritus Score at First Time of Relapse
3: Severe
|
5.9 percentage of participants
|
13.4 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 24Population: ITT Population included the entire population who were enrolled and randomized (i.e., assigned a kit number). Here, overall number of participants analyzed refer to the participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The first relapse was defined as the first time during the maintenance phase when participant presented with a GSS \>2. Individual sign scores of erythema were evaluated on a scale of 0-4 (0= none, 1= mild, 2=moderate, 3= severe, 4= very severe), where 0 indicates best and 4 indicates worst. Percentage of participants with individual signs (erythema, scaling and plaque thickening) scores were reported. There were no participants in scaling category with 0 score.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=68 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
n=97 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Erythema: Score 3 (Severe)
|
25.0 percentage of participants
|
30.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Plaque Thickening: Score 1 (Mild)
|
17.6 percentage of participants
|
14.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Plaque Thickening: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
64.7 percentage of participants
|
67.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Plaque Thickening : Score 3 (Severe)
|
16.2 percentage of participants
|
14.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Plaque Thickening: Score 0 (None)
|
1.5 percentage of participants
|
2.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Erythema: Score 0 (None)
|
1.5 percentage of participants
|
0 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Erythema: Score 1 (Mild)
|
13.2 percentage of participants
|
13.4 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Erythema: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
57.4 percentage of participants
|
54.6 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Erythema: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
2.9 percentage of participants
|
1 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Scaling: Score 1 (Mild)
|
4.4 percentage of participants
|
4.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Scaling: Score 2 (Moderate)
|
57.4 percentage of participants
|
64.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Scaling: Score 3 (Severe)
|
35.3 percentage of participants
|
29.9 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Scaling: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
2.9 percentage of participants
|
1.0 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Individual Category of Scalp Psoriasis Individual Signs (Erythema, Scaling and Plaque Thickening) Scores at First Time of Relapse
Plaque Thickening: Score 4 (Very Severe)
|
0 percentage of participants
|
2.1 percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 28Population: ITT worstcase population signifies participants who prematurely discontinued before the time of first relapse were considered as relapse at following visit.
Number of relapses of participants were categorized as 0; zero relapse, 1; one relapse, 2; two relapse, 3; three relapse, 4; two consecutive relapses. Percentage of participants with total number of relapses experienced during maintenance period was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=106 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
n=111 Participants
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<=2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate Shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Number of Relapses Experienced
4: Two Consecutive Relapses
|
25.5 percentage of participants
|
26.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Number of Relapses Experienced
0: Zero Relapse
|
31.1 percentage of participants
|
8.1 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Number of Relapses Experienced
1: One Relapse
|
26.4 percentage of participants
|
22.5 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Number of Relapses Experienced
2: Two Relapse
|
9.4 percentage of participants
|
25.2 percentage of participants
|
|
Maintenance Phase: Percentage of Participants With Number of Relapses Experienced
3: Three Relapse
|
7.5 percentage of participants
|
18.0 percentage of participants
|
Adverse Events
Initial Phase:- Clobex® Shampoo
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
Initial Phase:- Clobex® Shampoo
n=288 participants at risk
In initial open-label phase, participants were applied Clobetasol Propionate 0.05% (W/W) shampoo topically to the scalp once daily (twice a week) for 4 weeks (weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 Milliliter\]).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=106 participants at risk
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<= 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse \[i.e., GSS \> 2\] participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
n=111 participants at risk
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS ≤ 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Intervertebral disc protrusion
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pneumonia
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Aortic aneurysm rupture
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Renal failure
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Upper limb fracture
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Syncope
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Prostate cancer
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Renal cell carcinoma stage unspecified
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Breast cancer
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal Hernia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Initial Phase:- Clobex® Shampoo
n=288 participants at risk
In initial open-label phase, participants were applied Clobetasol Propionate 0.05% (W/W) shampoo topically to the scalp once daily (twice a week) for 4 weeks (weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 Milliliter\]).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Shampoo
n=106 participants at risk
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS \<= 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W) twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse \[i.e., GSS \> 2\] participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
Maintenance Phase: Clobex® Vehicle Shampoo
n=111 participants at risk
In maintenance double-blind phase, participants presented with a good efficacy (GSS ≤ 2) in initial phase were randomized to apply Clobex® vehicle shampoo twice weekly up to 6 months (wherein weekly dose was not more than 50 grams \[50 milliliter\]). In case of relapse (i.e., GSS \> 2) participants were re-entered to 4-week daily treatment with Clobetasol Propionate shampoo 0.05% (W/W). After this 4-week period of daily treatment, if GSS \<= 2, participants were re-entering the maintenance regimen (twice a week).
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Ear and labyrinth disorders
Vertigo
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhoea
|
0.69%
2/288 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Gastritis
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Gastroenteritis
|
0.69%
2/288 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
1.9%
2/106 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
5.4%
6/111 • Number of events 6 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Gastroesophageal reflux Disease
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal pain
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Colitis Ulcerative
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Dyspepsia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
3.6%
4/111 • Number of events 5 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Toothache
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Vomiting
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Inguinal Hernia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
General disorders
Fatigue
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
General disorders
Influenza Like Illness
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
General disorders
Malaise
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
General disorders
Odema Peripheral
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
General disorders
Pyrexia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Gastroenteritis Viral
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Influenza
|
0.69%
2/288 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
4.5%
5/111 • Number of events 5 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Lice Infestation
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Nesopharyngitis
|
4.2%
12/288 • Number of events 12 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
9.4%
10/106 • Number of events 12 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
9.0%
10/111 • Number of events 11 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pneumonia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
1.8%
2/111 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Rhinitis
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Sinusitis
|
0.69%
2/288 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Upper Respiratory Tract Infection
|
1.0%
3/288 • Number of events 3 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
3.8%
4/106 • Number of events 4 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
3.6%
4/111 • Number of events 4 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Urinary Tract Infection
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Bronchitis
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Cystitis
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Viral Upper Respiratory Tract Infection
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Chronic Sinusitis
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Otitis Externa
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Otitis Media
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
1.8%
2/111 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Streptococcal Infection
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Vaginal Infection
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Tendon Injury
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Back Injury
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Foot Fracture
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Foreign Body in eye
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Muscle Strain
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Post-traumatic Pain
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Investigations
Electrocardiogram Abnormal
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Investigations
Blood Cortisol Increased
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Hypercholesterolaemia
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Back Pain
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Metatarsalgia
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Myalgia
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Neck Pain
|
0.69%
2/288 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Tendonitis
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Psoriatic Arthropathy
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Arthralgia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Musculoskeletal Pain
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Pain in Extremity
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
1.8%
2/111 • Number of events 3 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Dizziness
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Migraine
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Pharyngolaryngeal Pain
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
2.8%
3/106 • Number of events 3 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Asthma
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Respiratory Tract Congestion
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Cough
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Nasal Congestion
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
1.8%
2/111 • Number of events 3 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Alopecia
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermatitis
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermatitis Contact
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Hair Colour Changes
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Psoriasis
|
0.35%
1/288 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Skin Burning Sensation
|
1.4%
4/288 • Number of events 4 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Skin Discomfort
|
0.69%
2/288 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Eczema
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Folliculitis
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Hypotrichosis
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Pruritus
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Tinea Versicolour
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermal Cyst
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Ecchymosis
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Erythema
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Hypertension
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Cardiac Flutter
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Tachycardia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Angina Pectoris
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Endocrine disorders
Hypothyroidism
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Eye disorders
Conjunctivitis
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Basal Cell Carcinoma
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Urinary Incontinence
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Haematuria
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Surgical and medical procedures
Hysterectomy
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Surgical and medical procedures
Dental Prosthesis Placement
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Reproductive system and breast disorders
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Reproductive system and breast disorders
Vulvovaginal Dryness
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/106 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.90%
1/111 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Headache
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
1.9%
2/106 • Number of events 2 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
3.6%
4/111 • Number of events 5 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Transient Ischemic Attack
|
0.00%
0/288 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.94%
1/106 • Number of events 1 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
0.00%
0/111 • From baseline up to Week 28
Analysis was performed on safety population that included in the study. Safety population was defined as intent-to-treat population (entire population enrolled and randomized i.e., assigned a kit number), after exclusion of participants who never applied treatment with certainty based on monitoring report.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: OTHER