Trial Outcomes & Findings for Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Three Formulations of Ultra-low Dose Estriol Vaginal Gel (0.005%, 0.002%, 0.0008% Estriol Vaginal Gel) for the Treatment of Vaginal Dryness in Postmenopausal Women With Vulvovaginal Atrophy (NCT NCT02967510)
NCT ID: NCT02967510
Last Updated: 2019-09-25
Results Overview
Percentage of Subjects with change from baseline to week 12 in the severity of vaginal dryness was reported. Severity was defined as: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to Baseline represented a positive outcome.
COMPLETED
PHASE2
283 participants
From baseline to week 12
2019-09-25
Participant Flow
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
70
|
70
|
72
|
71
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
66
|
67
|
65
|
63
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
4
|
3
|
7
|
8
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Three Formulations of Ultra-low Dose Estriol Vaginal Gel (0.005%, 0.002%, 0.0008% Estriol Vaginal Gel) for the Treatment of Vaginal Dryness in Postmenopausal Women With Vulvovaginal Atrophy
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=72 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=71 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Total
n=283 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
61.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.43 • n=5 Participants
|
61.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.87 • n=7 Participants
|
62.2 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.05 • n=5 Participants
|
62.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.24 • n=4 Participants
|
62.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.12 • n=21 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
70 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
70 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
72 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
71 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
283 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
70 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
70 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
71 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
71 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
282 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: From baseline to week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of Subjects with change from baseline to week 12 in the severity of vaginal dryness was reported. Severity was defined as: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to Baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: -3
|
15 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: -2
|
23 Participants
|
33 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: -1
|
26 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: 0
|
4 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: 1
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from Baseline to Week 12 in Vaginal pH was reported. A decrease in pH compare to Baseline represents a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in Vaginal pH
|
-1.03 pH
Standard Error 0.106
|
-1.04 pH
Standard Error 0.108
|
-0.95 pH
Standard Error 0.107
|
-0.29 pH
Standard Error 0.108
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from Baseline to week 12 in the proportion of superficial cells of the vaginal epithelium was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=64 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=66 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Proportion of Superficial Cells of the Vaginal Epithelium.
|
0.24 ratio
Standard Error 0.023
|
0.17 ratio
Standard Error 0.024
|
0.19 ratio
Standard Error 0.023
|
0.02 ratio
Standard Error 0.024
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from Baseline to Week 12 in the proportion of parabasal cells of the vaginal epithelium was reported. A decrease in proportion of parabasal cells compared to Baseline represents a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=64 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=66 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Proportion of Parabasal Cells of the Vaginal Epithelium.
|
-0.54 ratio
Standard Error 0.036
|
-0.51 ratio
Standard Error 0.037
|
-0.47 ratio
Standard Error 0.036
|
-0.04 ratio
Standard Error 0.038
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from baseline to week 12 in the severity of dyspareunia was reported. Dyspareunia was only applicable in subjects who had experienced sexual activity with penetration since the previous study visit. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to Baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=39 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=31 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=41 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=32 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: -3
|
7 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: -2
|
9 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: -1
|
12 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 0
|
10 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 1
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 2
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with cvhange from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of pruritus or itching was reported. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to Baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: -3
|
2 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: -2
|
16 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: -1
|
18 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 0
|
33 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
28 Participants
|
25 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 1
|
0 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 2
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of burning was reported. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to Baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: -3
|
5 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: -2
|
22 Participants
|
21 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: -1
|
25 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 0
|
18 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 1
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of dysuria was reported. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive putcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: -3
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: -2
|
8 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: -1
|
18 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 0
|
43 Participants
|
39 Participants
|
40 Participants
|
44 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 1
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Global Symptom Score 1 was defined as the sum of all 5 individual symptom scores at a given visit, and was calculated only when all 5 symptom scores had a response available. the Global Symptom Score 1 ranged at Screening/Baseline between 2 (at least moderate vaginal dryness -per inclusion criteria) to 15 (all 5 studied symptoms severe in intensity). At Week 12/ET visit, the Global Symptom Score ranged between 0 (no symptoms) and 15 (all symptoms severe in intensity). A decrease in score compared to Baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=39 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=31 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=41 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=31 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Global Symptom Score 1
|
-4.30 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.425
|
-4.78 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.478
|
-4.51 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.412
|
-4.54 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.467
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from Baseline to Week 12 in the Global Symptom Score 2 was reported. Global Symptom Score 2 was defined as the sum of all 4 individual symptoms excluding dyspareunia (vaginal dryness, pruritus or itching, burning, and dysuria) for each subject at each time point: Screening/Baseline, Week 3 and Week 12/ET., and was calculated only when all 4 symptom scores had a response available. The maximum score possible to be obtained at a visit with the Global Symptom Score 2 was 12 (all symptoms severe in intensity). A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Global Symptom Score 2
|
-3.83 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.231
|
-3.78 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.234
|
-3.74 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.233
|
-3.27 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.237
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of pallor was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive putcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pallor.
Change from Baseline: -3
|
3 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pallor.
Change from Baseline: -2
|
17 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
25 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pallor.
Change from Baseline: -1
|
31 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
25 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pallor.
Change from Baseline: 0
|
16 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pallor.
Change from Baseline: 1
|
3 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pallor.
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Pallor.
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of friability was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: -3
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: -2
|
19 Participants
|
21 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: -1
|
26 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 0
|
21 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 1
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 2
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of thinning or flattening of folds was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: -3
|
4 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: -2
|
18 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: -1
|
29 Participants
|
33 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 0
|
17 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 1
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of presence of petechiae was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: -3
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: -2
|
10 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: -1
|
26 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 0
|
29 Participants
|
35 Participants
|
35 Participants
|
49 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 1
|
3 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 12Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 12 in the severity of dry mucosa was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=70 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=69 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: -3
|
8 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: -2
|
39 Participants
|
29 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: -1
|
17 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
23 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 0
|
5 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 1
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in the severity of vaginal dryness was reported. Severity was defined as: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=66 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: -3
|
6 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: -2
|
23 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: -1
|
28 Participants
|
33 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: 0
|
8 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Vaginal Dryness
Change from Baseline: 1
|
3 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: From baseline to week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in severity of dyspareunia was reported. Dyspareunia was only applicable in subjects who had experienced sexual activity with penetration since the previous study visit. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=33 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=29 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=37 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=27 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: -3
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: -2
|
7 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: -1
|
11 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 0
|
13 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 1
|
0 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 2
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dyspareunia
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in the severity of pruritus or itching was reported. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: -3
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: -2
|
10 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: -1
|
15 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
30 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 0
|
35 Participants
|
27 Participants
|
27 Participants
|
30 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 1
|
5 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 2
|
2 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pruritus or Itching
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in severity of burning was reported. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: -1
|
27 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
21 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 0
|
27 Participants
|
28 Participants
|
29 Participants
|
28 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 1
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: -3
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: -2
|
11 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Burning
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in severity of dysuria was reported. Symptom scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 1
|
3 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: -3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: -2
|
5 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: -1
|
14 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 0
|
46 Participants
|
39 Participants
|
48 Participants
|
48 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dysuria
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Global Symptom Score 1 was defined as the sum of all 5 individual symptom scores at a given visit, and was calculated only when all 5 symptom scores had a response available. the Global Symptom Score 1 ranged at Screening/Baseline between 2 (at least moderate vaginal dryness -per inclusion criteria) to 15 (all 5 studied symptoms severe in intensity). At Week 3 visit, the Global Symptom Score ranged between 0 (no symptoms) and 15 (all symptoms severe in intensity). A decrease in score compared to Baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=33 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=29 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=37 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=27 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Global Symptom Score 1
|
-2.99 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.483
|
-2.86 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.520
|
-4.37 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.454
|
-3.73 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.527
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from Baseline to Week 3 in the Global Symptom Score 2 was reported. Global Symptom Score 2 was defined as the sum of all 4 individual symptoms excluding dyspareunia (vaginal dryness, pruritus or itching, burning, and dysuria) for each subject at each time point: Screening/Baseline, Week 3 and Week 12/ET., and was calculated only when all 4 symptom scores had a response available. The maximum score possible to be obtained at a visit with the Global Symptom Score 2 was 12 (all symptoms severe in intensity). A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=66 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Global Symptom Score 2
|
-2.76 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.251
|
-2.82 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.254
|
-3.20 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.253
|
-2.60 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.255
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in severity of pallor was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pallor
Change from Baseline: -3
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pallor
Change from Baseline: -2
|
14 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pallor
Change from Baseline: -1
|
19 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pallor
Change from Baseline: 0
|
31 Participants
|
30 Participants
|
29 Participants
|
38 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pallor
Change from Baseline: 1
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pallor
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Pallor
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in severity of friability was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: -1
|
29 Participants
|
25 Participants
|
25 Participants
|
24 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 0
|
22 Participants
|
25 Participants
|
27 Participants
|
32 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 1
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: -3
|
2 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Friability
Change from Baseline: -2
|
14 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in severity of thinning or flattening of folds was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: -3
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: -2
|
12 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: -1
|
32 Participants
|
35 Participants
|
31 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 0
|
20 Participants
|
21 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
43 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 1
|
3 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Thinning or Flattening of Folds
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in the severity of presence of petechiae was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Presence of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: -3
|
2 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Presence of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: -2
|
8 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Presence of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: -1
|
23 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Presence of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 0
|
31 Participants
|
41 Participants
|
38 Participants
|
54 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Presence of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 1
|
3 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Presence of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 2
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Presence of Petechiae
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Percentage of subjects with change from Baseline to Week 3 in severity of dry mucosa was reported. Sign scores at each visit: 0= Absent, 1= Mild, 2= Moderate, 3= Severe. A decrease in score compared to baseline represented a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: -3
|
4 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: -2
|
29 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: -1
|
22 Participants
|
30 Participants
|
21 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 0
|
12 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
26 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 1
|
1 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 2
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Severity of Dry Mucosa
Change from Baseline: 3
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from Baseline to Week 3 in vaginal pH was reported. A decrease in pH compared to Baseline represents a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=67 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in Vaginal pH
|
-1.03 pH
Standard Error 0.095
|
-0.97 pH
Standard Error 0.096
|
-0.88 pH
Standard Error 0.095
|
-0.22 pH
Standard Error 0.096
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from baseline to week 3 in the proportion of superficial cells of the vaginal epithelium was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=65 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=61 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=61 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Proportion of Superficial Cells of the Vaginal Epithelium
|
0.48 ratio
Standard Error 0.035
|
0.43 ratio
Standard Error 0.036
|
0.38 ratio
Standard Error 0.035
|
0.04 ratio
Standard Error 0.037
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 3Population: The ITT population defined as all randomized subjects. The number of subjects analyzed defined as number of subjects evaluable for this endpoint.
Change from Baseline to Week 3 in the proportion of parabasal cells of the vaginal epithelium was reported. A decrease in proportion of parabasal cells compared to baseline represents a positive outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=65 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=61 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=68 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=61 Participants
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline to Week 3 in the Proportion of Parabasal Cells of the Vaginal Epithelium
|
-0.55 ratio
Standard Error 0.037
|
-0.57 ratio
Standard Error 0.037
|
-0.48 ratio
Standard Error 0.036
|
-0.08 ratio
Standard Error 0.038
|
Adverse Events
Estriol 0.005%
Estriol 0.002%
Estriol 0.0008%
Placebo
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=69 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=72 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=71 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Non-Hodgkin´s lymphoma
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Atrial fibrillation
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pneumonia
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Estriol 0.005%
n=70 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.005% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.002%
n=69 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.002% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Estriol 0.0008%
n=72 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of Estriol 0.0008% vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
Placebo
n=71 participants at risk
Subjects received 1 gram of matching placebo vaginal gel administered daily for Weeks 1-3. After 21 days of daily administration, treatment continued with twice-weekly administration up to Week 12
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Vascular disorders
Flushing
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Hypertension
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
General disorders
Pyrexia
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Insomnia
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Reproductive system and breast disorders
Breast inflammation
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Reproductive system and breast disorders
Ovarian cyst
|
2.9%
2/70 • Number of events 2 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Reproductive system and breast disorders
Vulvovaginal burning sensation
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Reproductive system and breast disorders
Vulvovaginal pruritus
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Accidental overdose
|
5.7%
4/70 • Number of events 5 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
4.3%
3/69 • Number of events 4 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
5.6%
4/72 • Number of events 4 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
4.2%
3/71 • Number of events 4 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Animal bite
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Fall
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Limb injury
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Neck injury
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Radius fracture
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Road traffic accident
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Investigations
Alanine aminotransferase increased
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Investigations
Aspartate aminotransferase increased
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Investigations
Blood glucose increased
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal pain
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Flatulence
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Hyperchlorhydria
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
2.8%
2/71 • Number of events 2 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Loose tooth
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Hepatobiliary disorders
Cholecystitis
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Leukocyturia
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Erythema
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Pruritus
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Arthritis reactive
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Back pain
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Hyperuricaemia
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Bacterial vaginosis
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Bronchitis
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Cystitis
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
2.8%
2/72 • Number of events 3 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
4.2%
3/71 • Number of events 3 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Gastroenteritis viral
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Influenza
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/69 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 2 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Nasopharyngitis
|
1.4%
1/70 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
2.9%
2/69 • Number of events 2 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
4.2%
3/72 • Number of events 3 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
4.2%
3/71 • Number of events 3 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pharyngitis
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Sinusitis
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/71 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Tooth abscess
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Urinary tract infection
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/72 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
4.2%
3/71 • Number of events 3 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Viral infection
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
2.8%
2/71 • Number of events 2 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Vulval abscess
|
0.00%
0/70 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/69 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
0.00%
0/72 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
1.4%
1/71 • Number of events 1 • Adverse events were assessed from the time the subject signed the ICF until exit from the study, aproximately 20 weeks
The safety population included all randomized subjects who received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Data for treatment-emergent adverse events is presented here. Subjects were questioned and observed for evidence of AEs. For any preexisting condition or abnormal laboratory finding that changed in severity after dosing, the change was to be recorded as an AE. New abnormal laboratory findings that were considered clinically significant by the Investigator were considered AEs.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place