The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

Modified Intent-to-Treat(MITT) population: Participants randomized into efficacy substudy; at least 1 dose of study drug, vasomotor symptoms on at least 1 day of baseline period and 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) method was used. 1 participant in each group did not have data till Week 4.

The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

MITT population included all participants who were randomized into efficacy substudy, had at least 1 dose of study drug, had vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and at least 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. Assessment was done using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

Severity ranged from mild (sensation of heat without sweating); moderate (sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity) to severe (sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity). The average daily severity of hot flushes for each time period was calculated as (1*Number of mild+2*Number of moderate+3*Number of severe)/(Total number of hot flushes). For the days with no hot flushes, the severity score was set as 0. As this was derived from the count data, there was no maximum; the minimum score was 0; the higher values showed worse outcomes.

MITT population: All participants randomized into efficacy substudy, had at least 1 dose of study drug, had vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and at least 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. Assessment was done using LOCF method. 1 participant in each group did not have data till Week 4.

Severity ranged from mild (sensation of heat without sweating); moderate (sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity) to severe (sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity). The average daily severity of hot flushes for each time period was calculated as (1*Number of mild+2*Number of moderate+3*Number of severe)/(Total number of hot flushes). For the days with no hot flushes, the severity score was set as 0. As this was derived from the count data, there was no maximum; the minimum score was 0; the higher values showed worse outcomes.

MITT population included all participants who were randomized into efficacy substudy, had at least 1 dose of study drug, had vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and at least 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. Assessment was done using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

Adjudicated ischemic cardiovascular events were a composite of: a) Coronary Heart Disease (CHD)-related death; b) New Myocardial Infarction (MI) (non-procedure-related MI); c) Documented new onset of unstable angina requiring hospitalization; d) Unscheduled coronary revascularization procedures (percutaneous coronary intervention) or bypass grafting.

Safety population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication.

A mean decrease from baseline of at least 5.35 moderate to severe hot flushes at week 12 in the participants was considered clinically meaningful.

MITT population included all participants who were randomized into efficacy substudy, had at least 1 dose of study drug, had vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and at least 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. Assessment was done using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

MITT population included all participants who were randomized into efficacy substudy, had at least 1 dose of study drug, had vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and at least 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. Assessment was done using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity.

MITT population included all participants who were randomized into efficacy substudy, had at least 1 dose of study drug, had vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and at least 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. Assessment was done using last observation carried forward (LOCF) method.

Time to response was defined as the time-to-first 50% reduction in the average daily number of moderate to severe hot flushes over 3 consecutive days.

MITT population included all participants who were randomized into efficacy substudy, had at least 1 dose of study drug, had vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and at least 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy.

The average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes was calculated as the sum of the number of moderate and severe hot flushes on each day divided by the number of days with data. Moderate hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; able to continue activity; and severe hot flushes: sensation of heat with sweating; causing cessation of activity. Adjusted mean was calculated by using change from baseline as response variable, treatment as factor, and baseline as covariate using the observed cases.

MITT participants of the efficacy sub-study population who had non-missing average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes. The assessment was done using observed values. The 'n' is signifying those participants who received study drug and were evaluated for this measure at the time point for each group respectively.

Severity: mild (heat sensation without sweating); moderate (heat sensation with sweating; able to continue activity); severe (heat sensation with sweating; causing cessation of activity). Average daily severity of hot flushes= (1*Number of mild+2*Number of moderate+3*Number of severe)/(Total number of hot flushes). Days with no hot flushes: severity score=0. As it was derived from count data, there was no maximum; minimum score=0; higher values= worse outcomes. Adjusted mean: calculated using change from baseline=response variable, treatment=factor and baseline=covariate using observed cases.

MITT participants of the efficacy sub-study population who had non-missing average daily number of moderate and severe hot flushes. The assessment was done using observed values. The 'n' is signifying those participants who received study drug and were evaluated for this measure at the time point for each group respectively.

GCS: a 21 item evaluation of symptoms which asked participants how bothered they were with particular symptom at the moment. Each item was scored as 0 = Not at all, 1 = A little, 2 = Quite a bit, and 3 = Extremely. A total score was derived from the sum of the 21 items (range 0-63). GCS was also used to generate 6 individual scores (psychological symptoms [range 0-33], anxiety [range 0-18], depression [range 0-15], somatic symptoms [range 0-21], vasomotor symptoms [range 0-6], and sexual dysfunction [range 0-3]). A decrease in the total climacteric score indicated an improvement in symptoms.

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS) assessment or at least 1 on therapy Patient Global Impression (PGI) assessment.

GCS: a 21 item evaluation of symptoms which asked participants how bothered they were with particular symptom at the moment. Each item was scored as 0 = Not at all, 1 = A little, 2 = Quite a bit, and 3 = Extremely. A total score was derived from the sum of the 21 items (range 0-63). GCS was also used to generate 6 individual scores (psychological symptoms [range 0-33], anxiety [range 0-18], depression [range 0-15], somatic symptoms [range 0-21], vasomotor symptoms [range 0-6], and sexual dysfunction [range 0-3]). A decrease in the total climacteric score indicated an improvement in symptoms.

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment.

GCS: a 21 item evaluation of symptoms which asked participants how bothered they were with particular symptom at the moment. Each item was scored as 0 = Not at all, 1 = A little, 2 = Quite a bit, and 3 = Extremely. A total score was derived from the sum of the 21 items (range 0-63). GCS was also used to generate 6 individual scores (psychological symptoms [range 0-33], anxiety [range 0-18], depression [range 0-15], somatic symptoms [range 0-21], vasomotor symptoms [range 0-6], and sexual dysfunction [range 0-3]). A decrease in the total climacteric score indicated an improvement in symptoms.

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment.

PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment. Assessment was done using LOCF method.

PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment. Assessment was done using LOCF method.

PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment. Assessment was done using LOCF method.

PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

MITT population: All participants randomized into efficacy substudy; at least 1 dose of study drug, vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. LOCF method was used. Participants analyzed included those who were evaluated for this particular scale.

PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

MITT population: All participants randomized into efficacy substudy; at least 1 dose of study drug, vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. LOCF method was used. Participants analyzed included those who were evaluated for this particular scale.

PGI-R scale was intended to assess the study participant's perception of symptoms. Participants were requested to identify the severity of their hot flush symptoms. It was a 5-scale which ranged from 1 (None) to 5 (Severe).

MITT population: All participants randomized into efficacy substudy; at least 1 dose of study drug, vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. LOCF method was used. Participants analyzed included those who were evaluated for this particular scale.

PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment. Assessment was done using LOCF method.

PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment. Assessment was done using LOCF method.

PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

Main study efficacy population included all participants who were randomized; had at least 1 dose of study medication; and had a baseline and at least 1 on therapy GCS assessment or at least 1 on therapy PGI assessment. Assessment was done using LOCF method.

PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

MITT population: All participants randomized into efficacy substudy; at least 1 dose of study drug, vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. LOCF method was used. Participants analyzed included those who were evaluated for this particular scale.

PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

MITT population: All participants randomized into efficacy substudy; at least 1 dose of study drug, vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. LOCF method was used. Participants analyzed included those who were evaluated for this particular scale.

PGI-C score was intended to assess the study participant's perception of changes in hot flushes. It was 7-point scale which ranged from 1 (Very Much Improved) to 7 (Very Much Worse).

MITT population: All participants randomized into efficacy substudy; at least 1 dose of study drug, vasomotor symptoms recorded on at least 1 day of baseline period and 1 day of on-therapy period during initial 12 weeks of therapy. LOCF method was used. Participants analyzed included those who were evaluated for this particular scale.

Adjudicated cerebrovascular events were identified using Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ), for "central nervous system haemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions". Primary assessments included: 1) definite stroke, 2) probable stroke, 3) probable transient ischemic attack (TIA), and 4) no stroke or TIA.

Safety population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication.

Adjudicated cerebrovascular events were identified using Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ), for "central nervous system haemorrhages and cerebrovascular conditions". Primary assessments included: 1) definite stroke, 2) probable stroke, 3) probable transient ischemic attack (TIA), and 4) no stroke or TIA.

Safety population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication.

Potential ischaemic cardiac events were identified using the Standardized MedDRA Query (SMQ) "Ischemic Heart Disease".

Safety population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication.

Hepatic events were defined as incidence of increased Liver Function Test (AST [aspartate aminotransferase] or ALT [alanine aminotransferase]) levels greater than 5 times the ULN (upper limit of normal).

Safety population included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication.