Visanne Study to Assess Safety in Adolescents (VISADO)

August 12, 2015 updated by: Bayer

A Multi-center, Open Label, Single-arm Study to Investigate the Safety and Efficacy of Daily Oral Administration of 2 mg Dienogest Tablets for the Treatment of Endometriosis in Adolescents Over a Treatment Period of 52 Weeks

A clinical trial which was designed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Visanne (approved in endometriosis for adults) in the adolescent population.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

111

Phase

  • Phase 2

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Graz, Austria, 8010
      • Innsbruck, Austria, 6020
      • Wien, Austria, 1090
      • Wien, Austria, 1060
    • Niederösterreich
      • St. Pölten, Niederösterreich, Austria, 3100
    • Oberösterreich
      • Linz, Oberösterreich, Austria, 4020
    • Steiermark
      • Graz, Steiermark, Austria, 8044
      • Brno, Czech Republic, 625 00
      • Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic, 37001
      • Pisek, Czech Republic, 39701
      • Praha, Czech Republic, 13000
      • Praha 2, Czech Republic
      • Espoo, Finland, 02100
      • Helsinki, Finland, 00100
      • Turku, Finland, 20100
      • Angers Cedex 01, France, 49033
      • Le Kremlin Bicetre, France, 94275
      • Paris, France, 75018
      • Rouen, France, 76031
      • Berlin, Germany, 10117
      • Berlin, Germany, 12200
      • Berlin, Germany, 12587
      • Berlin, Germany, 13509
      • Berlin, Germany, 14129
      • Berlin, Germany, 14193
      • Hamburg, Germany, 20357
    • Bayern
      • Erlangen, Bayern, Germany, 91054
    • Niedersachsen
      • Oldenburg, Niedersachsen, Germany, 26121
      • Westerstede, Niedersachsen, Germany, 26655
    • Nordrhein-Westfalen
      • Münster, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany, 48149
    • Schleswig-Holstein
      • Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, 23538
      • Sevilla, Spain, 41014
      • Sevilla, Spain, 41013
      • Valencia, Spain, 46017
    • Alicante
      • Benidorm, Alicante, Spain, 03503
    • Pontevedra
      • Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain, 36209

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

10 years to 15 years (Child)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

Female

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Female adolescents after menarche (12 - less than 18 years of age) at screening. For Finland: Adolescents aged 12 - 14 years old who present with clinical features of endometriosis will only be enrolled into the study if their diagnosis of endometriosis has been confirmed by laparoscopy.
  • Dysmenorrhea of at least moderate intensity, with or without chronic pelvic pain, for at least 2 cycles in the previous 4 months and one of the following conditions:

    • Clinically suspected endometriosis based on the presence of pelvic pain incompletely relieved by non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and/or oral contraceptives
    • Any abdominal pain associated with ultrasound findings suggestive of endometriosis (abdominal, vaginal or rectal; only after additional specific consent and assent)
    • Failure of surgical treatment for endometriosis (with cyclic or chronic pelvic pain of at least 4 months duration postsurgery)
    • Threshold for endometriosis-associated pelvic pain (EAPP) score: at least 30 on a 100 units visual analog scale retrospectively evaluated at screening for the last 4 weeks

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Absence of endometriosis at laparoscopy
  • Previous application of hormonal agents including oral contraceptives within 2 months, progestins, danazol within 3 months, and Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonists within 6 months prior to start of treatment
  • Chronic pelvic pain that might be related to genitourinary disease or to chronic or recurrent gastrointestinal disease, including irritable bowel syndrome (defined as a disease characterized by pain relieved by defecation and irregular defecation patterns lasting at least 3 months)
  • Clinically established need for primary surgical treatment of endometriosis

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Dienogest (Visanne, BAY86-5258)
Subjects received Dienogest tablet orally at a dosage of 2 mg once daily over a period of 52 weeks.
Subjects received Dienogest tablet orally at a dosage of 2 mg once daily over a period of 52 weeks.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Relative change in bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine as assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA)
Time Frame: Baseline week 52
The measurement of BMD by DEXA is the gold standard method for investigation of bone mass.
Baseline week 52

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Relative Percent Change From Baseline in Whole Body Bone Mineral Density (BMD) at Week 52 Assessed by Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA)
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 52
The measurement of BMD by DEXA is the gold standard method for investigation of bone mass.
Baseline, Week 52
Change From Baseline in Spinal Lumbar Vertebrae 2 to 4 (L2-L4) Z scores at week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 52
Based on the BMD values and the weight, the age-normalized percentiles (Z-scores) were determined to allow for comparison with historical control groups. "No difference" in comparison with the historical control groups was defined as a Z-score between '-0.5' and '0.5', a lower value was defined as a value below '-0.5', and a higher value above '0.5'.
Baseline, Week 52
Change From Baseline in Whole Body Z-scores at Week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 52
Based on the BMD values and the weight, the age-normalized percentiles (Z-scores) were determined to allow for comparison with historical control groups. "No difference" in comparison with the historical control groups was defined as a Z-score between '-0.5' and '0.5', a lower value was defined as a value below '-0.5', and a higher value above '0.5'.
Baseline, Week 52
Percentage of Responders at Week 24
Time Frame: Week 24
Responders were defined as subjects with reduction in pain intensity from baseline of at least 30% in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 24. VAS consisted of a 100 unit long straight line, with verbal anchors at either end, representing a continuum of pain intensity. One end of the line with 0 score as "absence of pain" while the other end of the line with 100 score as "unbearable pain". The assessment of pelvic pain on a VAS was done once every 4 weeks till the end of the treatment (Week 52).
Week 24
Change From Baseline in Pelvic Pain Over 52 Weeks Using Modified Biberoglu and Behrman Severity Profile
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
The cardinal symptoms inlcuded in the modified Biberoglu and Behrman severity profile were pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia (the latter only in those subjects having sexual intercourse), analyzed at all visits with symptom severity scores from 0 (none) to 3 (severe). Negative value for change from baseline indicates an improvement. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
Change From Baseline in Dysmenorrhea Over 52 Weeks Using Modified Biberoglu and Behrman Severity Profile
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
The cardinal symptoms inlcuded in the modified Biberoglu and Behrman severity profile were pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia (the latter only in those subjects having sexual intercourse), analyzed at all visits with symptom severity scores from 0 (none) to 3 (severe). Negative value for change from baseline indicates an improvement. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
Percentage of Subjects With Pelvic Pain Over 52 Weeks Using Modified Biberoglu and Behrman Severity Profile
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
In order to judge therapeutic effectiveness and to compare subjects' complaints, a severity profile score of pelvic pain was assessed using a rating scale: missing; 0 = none; 1 = mild (occasional pelvic discomfort); 2 = moderate (noticeable discomfort for most of the cycle); 3 = severe (requires strong analgesics and persists during cycle when not menstruating) based on the subject's self-assessment of symptoms. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
Percentage of Subjects With Dysmenorrhea Over 52 Weeks Using Modified Biberoglu and Behrman Severity Profile
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
In order to judge therapeutic effectiveness and to compare subjects' complaints, a severity profile score of dysmenorrhea was assessed using a rating scale: missing; 0 = none; 1 = mild (some loss in work efficiency); 2 = moderate (in bed part of day, occasional loss of work efficiency); 3 = severe (in bed one or more days, incapacitation) based on the subject's self-assessment of symptoms. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
Percentage of Subjects With Dyspareunia Over 52 Weeks Using Modified Biberoglu and Behrman Severity Profile
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
In order to judge therapeutic effectiveness and to compare subjects' complaints, a severity profile score of dyspareunia was assessed using a rating scale.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
Percentage of Subjects With Pelvic Tenderness Over 52 Weeks Using Modified Biberoglu and Behrman Severity Profile
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
In order to judge therapeutic effectiveness and to compare subjects' complaints, a severity profile score of pelvic tenderness was assessed using a rating scale: missing; 0 = none (no pain during intercourse); 1 = mild (minimal tenderness on palpation); 2 = moderate (extensive tenderness on palpation); 3 = severe (unable to palpate because of tenderness) based on the gynecological palpation by the attending physician. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
Percentage of Subjects With Induration Over 52 Weeks Using Modified Biberoglu and Behrman Severity Profile
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
In order to judge therapeutic effectiveness and to compare subjects' complaints, a severity profile score of induration was assessed using a rating scale: missing; 0 = none (no pain during intercourse); 1 = mild (uterus freely mobile, induration in the cul-de-sac); 2 = moderate (thickened and indurated adnexa and cul-de-sac, restricted uterine mobility); 3 = severe (nodular adnexa and cul-de-sac, uterus frequently frozen) based on the gynecological palpation by the attending physician. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, and 52
Percentage of Subjects With Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scores - Assessed by the Investigator
Time Frame: Weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52
The investigator rating scale used in this study was based on the validated CGI scale, which is widely used as a simple tool to assess the overall effect of treatments. The investigator or a sub-investigator rated the total improvement according to the following scale: Score 1 = very much improved; Score 2 =much improved; Score 3 = minimally improved; Score 4 = no change; Score 5 = minimally worse; Score 6 = much worse; Score 7 = very much worse. None of the subjects reported Score 7. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52
Percentage of Subjects With Clinical Global Impression (CGI) Scores -Assessed by the Subject
Time Frame: Weeks 12, 24, 36, 40, and 52
The subject rating scale used in this study was based on the validated CGI scale, which is widely used as a simple tool to assess the overall effect of treatments. The subject was asked to rate her satisfaction with the study treatment according to the following scale: Score 1 = very much satisfied; Score 2 = much satisfied; Score 3 = minimally satisfied; Score 4 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; Score 5 =minimally dissatisfied; Score 6 = much dissatisfied; Score 7 = very much dissatisfied. In the listed categories, 'N' signifies those subjects who were evaluable for this measure.
Weeks 12, 24, 36, 40, and 52

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

March 1, 2011

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 1, 2013

Study Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2014

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 25, 2011

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 25, 2011

First Posted (Estimate)

January 26, 2011

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

August 13, 2015

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 12, 2015

Last Verified

August 1, 2015

More Information

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Endometriosis

Clinical Trials on Dienogest (Visanne, BAY86-5258)

3
Subscribe