Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Participants with agitation secondary to dementia of the Alzheimer's type. The diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) will be based on the "2011 Diagnostic Guidelines for Alzheimer's Disease" issued by the National Institute on Aging (NIA)-Alzheimer's Association (AA) workgroups.
Eligible participants for this study must have a diagnosis of probable AD and must have clinically meaningful agitation secondary to AD.
This is a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study, consisting of 12 weeks of treatment.
Approximately 470 participants will be enrolled at approximately 75 centers in North America.
Study medication will be administered orally twice-daily from Day 1 through Week 12 (Day 85). Screening will occur within approximately 4 weeks prior to randomization. Following screening procedures for assessment of inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible participants will be randomized into the study.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Placebo Comparator | Participants were administered AVP-786 matching placebo capsules, orally, twice daily (BID) for up to 12 weeks. |
|
| AVP-786-28 | Experimental | Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, once daily (QD) along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
| AVP-786-42.63 | Experimental | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3, and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVP-786-18 | Drug | 18 mg of Deudextromethorphan hydrobromide (d6-DM) and 4.9 mg of Quinidine sulfate (Q) |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite Score | The CMAI was used to assess the frequency of manifestations of agitated behaviors in elderly participants. It consists of 29 agitated items rated on a 7-point scale of frequency: 1, never; 2, less than once a week; 3, once or twice a week; 4, several times a week; 5, once or twice a day; 6, several times a day; 7, several times an hour. The CMAI total score ranges from 29 to 203. Higher scores indicate worsening of the condition. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Relative Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)-Agitation Score | The mADCS-CGIC-Agitation is a modified version of the ADCS-CGIC containing additional questions related to agitation and an assessment of the Clinician's Impression of Change focused specifically on agitation. Participants are asked to rate their impression of change as: 1=Marked Improvement; 2=Moderate Improvement; 3=Minimal Improvement; 4=No Change; 5=Minimal Worsening; 6=Moderate Worsening; 7=Marked Worsening. Higher scores indicate worsening of agitation and positive change from baseline indicates worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brain and Spine Center | Chandler | Arizona | 85226 | United States | ||
| Territory Neurology & Research Institute |
Anonymized Individual participant data (IPD) that underlie the results of this study will be shared with researcher sound research proposal. Small studies with less than 25 participants are excluded from data sharing.
Data will be available after marketing approval in global markets, or beginning 1-3 years following article publica data.
Otsuka will share data on the Vivli data sharing platform which can be found here: https://vivli.org/ourmember/O
A total of 925 participants were screened of which 522 participants were enrolled and 521 participants were randomized to receive placebo or AVP-786-28 or AVP-786-42.63.
Participants took part in the study at 83 investigative sites in North America from 11 November 2015 to 09 September 2019.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Placebo | Participants were administered AVP-786 matching placebo capsules, orally, twice daily (BID) for up to 12 weeks. |
| FG001 | AVP-786-28 | Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, once daily (QD) along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Feb 28, 2017 | Aug 12, 2022 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Placebo | Drug | Administered as capsules. |
|
| AVP-786-28 | Drug | 28 mg of d6-DM and 4.9 mg of Q |
|
| AVP-786-42.63 | Drug | 42.63 mg of d6-DM and 4.9 mg of Q |
|
| Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression Domain Score | The NPI is a retrospective caregiver-informant interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains. The Agitation/Aggression domain is designed to collect information on the behavioral aspects of agitation/aggression in participants with probable AD and clinically meaningful agitation secondary to AD. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Agitation/Aggression Caregiver Distress Score | The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate caregiver distress. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total caregiver distress score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain Score | The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate aberrant motor behavior. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as: 1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) Score | The ZBI is a 22-item scale used to assess the impact of a participants' disabilities on the caregiver's life. It is designed to reflect the burden experienced by caregivers of dementia participants and can either be completed by the caregiver or administered as an interview. Each item of the scale is rated to reflect the burden using the 5-point scale: 0=Never; 1=Rarely; 2=Sometimes; 3=Quite Frequently; 4=Nearly Always. The ZBI is scored by summing the responses of the individual questions and ranges from 0 to 88. Higher scores indicate greater caregiver distress. Negative change from baseline indicates less distress. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Irritability/Lability Domain Score | The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains, including the irritability/lability domain score. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening of the symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Total Score | NPI evaluates both frequency and severity of 12 neuropsychiatric disturbances including delusions, hallucinations, agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, anxiety, elation/euphoria, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, irritability/lability, motor disturbance, night time behaviors, as well as appetite/eating. Total domain score= frequency x severity and thus ranges from 1 to 12. NPI domain is rated by caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Frequency is rated as:1=occasionally, 2=often, 3= frequently, and 4=very frequently. Severity is rated as:1=mild,2=moderate,3=severe. Frequency and severity rating scales has defined anchor points to enhance reliability of caregiver responses. Caregiver distress is rated for each positive neuropsychiatric symptom using following anchored scores. It is rated as 0=not at all,1=minimal,2=mild,3=moderate,4=severe,5=very severe. Individual Item scores are added to yield a possible total score of 0 to 144. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS)-Agitation Domain Score | The CGIS-Agitation is an observer-rated scale that measures illness severity. The CGIS-Agitation is a 7-point (1-7) scale (1=normal, not at all ill participants; 7=among the most extremely ill participants) and is assessed for severity of agitation. A value of 0 is given to participants who are not assessed. Higher scores indicate poor health of participants. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Overall Rating | The ADCS-CGIC rating scale provides a reliable means to assess change from a Baseline level of global function within the time frame of the trial. ADCS-CGIC-Overall focuses on the clinician's observations of change in the participant's cognitive, functional, and behavioral performance. The ADCS-CGIC-Overall responses (1-7) are rated as: 1 = marked improvement, 2 = moderate improvement, 3 = minimal improvement, 4 = no change, 5 = minimal worsening, 6 = moderate worsening, or 7 = marked worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Score | The PGIC is a 7-point (1-7) scale used to assess treatment response: 1 = very much improved, = much improved, 3 = minimally improved, 4 = no change, 5 = minimally worse, 6 = much worse, or 7 = very much worse. Higher scores indicate less response to treatment. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Dementia Quality of Life (DEMQOL) Score | The DEMQOL scale is used to evaluate health-related QOL in participants with dementia and their caregivers. There are 2 versions of the DEMQOL: a 28-item version (rated by the participant); and a 31-item version (DEMQOL-proxy, rated by the caregiver). Both versions are recommended for evaluating participants (and their caregivers) with mild to moderate dementia. The DEMQOL total score ranges from 28 to 112. The DEMQOL-proxy is used for participants with severe dementia; the total score ranges from 31 to 124. For both versions, higher scores indicate greater QOL. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) Score | The CSDD scale is used to assess signs/symptoms of major depression in participants with dementia. CSDD has 19 items, and each item is rated for severity on the following scale of 0 to 2 (0 =absent, 1= mild/intermittent 2=severe). CSDD score is calculated by summing non-missing scores from each item score. The scale ranges from 0 (no depression) to 38 (maximum depression). Scores above 10 indicate a probable major depression, above 18 indicate a definite major depression, and below 6 as a rule are associated with the absence of significant depressive symptoms. Higher score indicated maximum depression. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12 | The GMHR is a global clinical rating for medical health, designed to quantify in a single number (1 to 4) the severity of general comorbidity in a participant with dementia. The ratings are: 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good; 4 = excellent to very good. MMRM was used for the analysis. | Week 12 |
| Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) Score | The ADAS is designed to evaluate the cognitive and non-cognitive behavioral dysfunction characteristics of participants with AD. The cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) consists of 11 subsets related to memory, praxis, and language. ADAS-cog scores range from 0 to 70. Higher scores indicate greater cognitive impairment. Negative change from baseline indicates less cognitive impairment. MMRM method was used for analysis. | Baseline, Week 12 |
| Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the Participant | The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations and doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on hours per day the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing? Q2= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters? Q3= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you spend supervising (that is, preventing dangerous events) the participant? | Week 12 |
| Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the Participant | The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on days the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing) services to the participant? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters) services to the participant? Q3= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these services (supervising) to the participant? | Week 12 |
| Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare Professional | The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on the number of hospital visits, emergency visits and visits to healthcare professional were reported in this outcome measure using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many times did the participant receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many times did the caregiver receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q3= During the last 30 days total number of visits by participant to a health care professional? Q4= During the last 30 days, how many times (number of visits for each) the participant visited any other health care professional? | Week 12 |
| Tucson |
| Arizona |
| 85704 |
| United States |
| Health Initiatives Research | Fayetteville | Arkansas | 72703 | United States |
| Behavioral Research Specialists, LLC | Glendale | California | 91206 | United States |
| Irvine Center for Clinical Research | Irvine | California | 92614 | United States |
| California Neurological Services | Panorama City | California | 91402 | United States |
| Havana Research Institute | Pasadena | California | 91105 | United States |
| Pacific Research Network, Inc | San Diego | California | 92103 | United States |
| Syrentis Clinical Research | Santa Ana | California | 92705 | United States |
| Viking Clinical Research | Temecula | California | 92591 | United States |
| Denver Neurological Research, LLC | Denver | Colorado | 80210 | United States |
| JEM Research Institute | Atlantis | Florida | 33462 | United States |
| Clinical Research Of Brandon, LLC | Brandon | Florida | 33511 | United States |
| Meridien Research | Brooksville | Florida | 34601 | United States |
| Moonshine Research Center, Inc | Doral | Florida | 33166 | United States |
| Science Connections, LLC | Doral | Florida | 33166 | United States |
| Finlay Medical Research Corp | Greenacres City | Florida | 33467 | United States |
| Indago Research & Health Center, Inc. | Hialeah | Florida | 33012 | United States |
| New Life Medical Research Center, Inc. | Hialeah | Florida | 33012 | United States |
| Reliable Clinical Research,LLC | Hialeah | Florida | 33012 | United States |
| Research in Miami, Inc | Hialeah | Florida | 33013 | United States |
| The Research Center, Inc | Hialeah | Florida | 33013 | United States |
| Maxblue Institute | Hialeah | Florida | 33018 | United States |
| Clinical Neuroscience Solutions, Inc. | Jacksonville | Florida | 32256 | United States |
| Alzheimer's Research and Treatment Center | Lake Worth | Florida | 33449 | United States |
| Premier Clinical Research Institute, Inc. | Miami | Florida | 33122 | United States |
| Project 4 Research | Miami | Florida | 33125 | United States |
| BioMed Research Institute | Miami | Florida | 33126 | United States |
| CCM Clinical Research Group | Miami | Florida | 33133 | United States |
| DADE Research Center, LLC | Miami | Florida | 33135 | United States |
| AMB Research Center, Inc. | Miami | Florida | 33144 | United States |
| United Health Research Corp | Miami | Florida | 33144 | United States |
| Advance Medical Research Center | Miami | Florida | 33165 | United States |
| Coral Research Clinic Corp | Miami | Florida | 33175 | United States |
| P&S Reasearch | Miami | Florida | 33175 | United States |
| The Neurology Research Group, LLC | Miami | Florida | 33176 | United States |
| Kendall Research Institute | Miami | Florida | 33183 | United States |
| Nuovida Research Center Corp. | Miami | Florida | 33186 | United States |
| Collier Neurologic Specialists, LLC | Naples | Florida | 34102 | United States |
| Lazlo J. Mate, MD, PA | North Palm Beach | Florida | 33408 | United States |
| Compass Research, LLC | Orlando | Florida | 32806 | United States |
| IMIC Inc. | Palmetto Bay | Florida | 33157 | United States |
| University of West Florida | Pensacola | Florida | 32514 | United States |
| Neurology Research Institute Palm Beach, LLC | West Palm Beach | Florida | 33407 | United States |
| Emory Brain Health Center | Atlanta | Georgia | 30329 | United States |
| Columbus Research & Wellness Institute, INC | Columbus | Georgia | 31904 | United States |
| Josephson Wallack Munshower Neurology, PC | Indianapolis | Indiana | 46256 | United States |
| Baptist Health Medical Group | Richmond | Kentucky | 40475 | United States |
| The Samuel & Alexia Bratton Memory Clinic | Easton | Maryland | 21601 | United States |
| Mir Neurology | Hagerstown | Maryland | 21742 | United States |
| Boston Center for Memory | Newton | Massachusetts | 02459 | United States |
| AMAC Research Institute | North Dartmouth | Massachusetts | 02747 | United States |
| Michigan State University | East Lansing | Michigan | 48824 | United States |
| Center for Emotional Fitness | Cherry Hill | New Jersey | 08002 | United States |
| The NeuroCognitive Institute | Mount Arlington | New Jersey | 07856 | United States |
| Brooklyn Medical Institute | Brooklyn | New York | 11214 | United States |
| Integrative Clinical Trials, LLC | Brooklyn | New York | 11229 | United States |
| Eastside Comprehensive Medical Center, LLC | New York | New York | 10128 | United States |
| Burke Rehabilitation Hospital | White Plains | New York | 10605 | United States |
| Herbert Harris, MD, PhD, PA | Chapel Hill | North Carolina | 27517 | United States |
| ANI Neurology PLLC dba Alzheimer's Memory Center | Charlotte | North Carolina | 28270 | United States |
| Daystar Clinical Research Inc | Akron | Ohio | 44313 | United States |
| Valley Medical Research | Centerville | Ohio | 45459 | United States |
| CTI Clinical Research Center | Cincinnati | Ohio | 45212 | United States |
| Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health at Lakewood Hospital | Lakewood | Ohio | 44107 | United States |
| Heritage Valley Medical Group, Inc. | Beaver | Pennsylvania | 15009 | United States |
| The Birches at Newton / Family Medical Associates | Levittown | Pennsylvania | 19056 | United States |
| Thomas Jefferson University | Philadelphia | Pennsylvania | 19107 | United States |
| RH Johnson VA Medical Center | Charleston | South Carolina | 29401 | United States |
| BG Neurology | Spartanburg | South Carolina | 29307 | United States |
| Texas Neurology, P.A. | Dallas | Texas | 75214 | United States |
| Baylor College of Medicine | Houston | Texas | 77030 | United States |
| Houston Methodist Neurological Institute | Houston | Texas | 77030 | United States |
| Clinical Trial Network | Houston | Texas | 77074 | United States |
| Texas Medical Research Associates, L.L.C. | San Antonio | Texas | 78238 | United States |
| Pharmaceuticals Research Associates, Inc. | Salt Lake City | Utah | 84107 | United States |
| Clinical Neuroscience Research Associates, Inc. dba The Memory Clinic | Bennington | Vermont | 05201 | United States |
| Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Salem Virginia | Salem | Virginia | 24153 | United States |
| IPC Research | Waukesha | Wisconsin | 53188 | United States |
| Dr. Alexander McIntyre Inc. | Calgary | Alberta | N7L 1C1 | Canada |
| The Medical Art Health Research Group | Kelowna | Bristish Columbia | Canada |
| The Medical Art Health Research Group | Penticton | Bristish Columbia | Canada |
| The Medical Art Health Research Group | West Vancouver | Bristish Columbia | Canada |
| FG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
| Safety Population | Safety Population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. Participants were included in the treatment group based on the actual treatment received. |
|
| Modified Intent-to-Treat (mITT) Population | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received |
|
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
All Randomized Population included all the participants who were randomized in the study.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Placebo | Participants were administered AVP-786 matching placebo capsules, orally, BID for up to 12 weeks. |
| BG001 | AVP-786-28 | Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
| BG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
| BG003 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Standard Deviation | years |
| |||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite Score | The CMAI was used to assess the frequency of manifestations of agitated behaviors in elderly participants. It consists of 29 agitated items rated on a 7-point scale of frequency: 1, never; 2, less than once a week; 3, once or twice a week; 4, several times a week; 5, once or twice a day; 6, several times a day; 7, several times an hour. The CMAI total score ranges from 29 to 203. Higher scores indicate worsening of the condition. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Relative Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)-Agitation Score | The mADCS-CGIC-Agitation is a modified version of the ADCS-CGIC containing additional questions related to agitation and an assessment of the Clinician's Impression of Change focused specifically on agitation. Participants are asked to rate their impression of change as: 1=Marked Improvement; 2=Moderate Improvement; 3=Minimal Improvement; 4=No Change; 5=Minimal Worsening; 6=Moderate Worsening; 7=Marked Worsening. Higher scores indicate worsening of agitation and positive change from baseline indicates worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression Domain Score | The NPI is a retrospective caregiver-informant interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains. The Agitation/Aggression domain is designed to collect information on the behavioral aspects of agitation/aggression in participants with probable AD and clinically meaningful agitation secondary to AD. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Agitation/Aggression Caregiver Distress Score | The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate caregiver distress. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total caregiver distress score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain Score | The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate aberrant motor behavior. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as: 1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) Score | The ZBI is a 22-item scale used to assess the impact of a participants' disabilities on the caregiver's life. It is designed to reflect the burden experienced by caregivers of dementia participants and can either be completed by the caregiver or administered as an interview. Each item of the scale is rated to reflect the burden using the 5-point scale: 0=Never; 1=Rarely; 2=Sometimes; 3=Quite Frequently; 4=Nearly Always. The ZBI is scored by summing the responses of the individual questions and ranges from 0 to 88. Higher scores indicate greater caregiver distress. Negative change from baseline indicates less distress. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Irritability/Lability Domain Score | The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains, including the irritability/lability domain score. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening of the symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Total Score | NPI evaluates both frequency and severity of 12 neuropsychiatric disturbances including delusions, hallucinations, agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, anxiety, elation/euphoria, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, irritability/lability, motor disturbance, night time behaviors, as well as appetite/eating. Total domain score= frequency x severity and thus ranges from 1 to 12. NPI domain is rated by caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Frequency is rated as:1=occasionally, 2=often, 3= frequently, and 4=very frequently. Severity is rated as:1=mild,2=moderate,3=severe. Frequency and severity rating scales has defined anchor points to enhance reliability of caregiver responses. Caregiver distress is rated for each positive neuropsychiatric symptom using following anchored scores. It is rated as 0=not at all,1=minimal,2=mild,3=moderate,4=severe,5=very severe. Individual Item scores are added to yield a possible total score of 0 to 144. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS)-Agitation Domain Score | The CGIS-Agitation is an observer-rated scale that measures illness severity. The CGIS-Agitation is a 7-point (1-7) scale (1=normal, not at all ill participants; 7=among the most extremely ill participants) and is assessed for severity of agitation. A value of 0 is given to participants who are not assessed. Higher scores indicate poor health of participants. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Overall Rating | The ADCS-CGIC rating scale provides a reliable means to assess change from a Baseline level of global function within the time frame of the trial. ADCS-CGIC-Overall focuses on the clinician's observations of change in the participant's cognitive, functional, and behavioral performance. The ADCS-CGIC-Overall responses (1-7) are rated as: 1 = marked improvement, 2 = moderate improvement, 3 = minimal improvement, 4 = no change, 5 = minimal worsening, 6 = moderate worsening, or 7 = marked worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Score | The PGIC is a 7-point (1-7) scale used to assess treatment response: 1 = very much improved, = much improved, 3 = minimally improved, 4 = no change, 5 = minimally worse, 6 = much worse, or 7 = very much worse. Higher scores indicate less response to treatment. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Dementia Quality of Life (DEMQOL) Score | The DEMQOL scale is used to evaluate health-related QOL in participants with dementia and their caregivers. There are 2 versions of the DEMQOL: a 28-item version (rated by the participant); and a 31-item version (DEMQOL-proxy, rated by the caregiver). Both versions are recommended for evaluating participants (and their caregivers) with mild to moderate dementia. The DEMQOL total score ranges from 28 to 112. The DEMQOL-proxy is used for participants with severe dementia; the total score ranges from 31 to 124. For both versions, higher scores indicate greater QOL. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) Score | The CSDD scale is used to assess signs/symptoms of major depression in participants with dementia. CSDD has 19 items, and each item is rated for severity on the following scale of 0 to 2 (0 =absent, 1= mild/intermittent 2=severe). CSDD score is calculated by summing non-missing scores from each item score. The scale ranges from 0 (no depression) to 38 (maximum depression). Scores above 10 indicate a probable major depression, above 18 indicate a definite major depression, and below 6 as a rule are associated with the absence of significant depressive symptoms. Higher score indicated maximum depression. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12 | The GMHR is a global clinical rating for medical health, designed to quantify in a single number (1 to 4) the severity of general comorbidity in a participant with dementia. The ratings are: 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good; 4 = excellent to very good. MMRM was used for the analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Count of Participants | Participants | Week 12 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) Score | The ADAS is designed to evaluate the cognitive and non-cognitive behavioral dysfunction characteristics of participants with AD. The cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) consists of 11 subsets related to memory, praxis, and language. ADAS-cog scores range from 0 to 70. Higher scores indicate greater cognitive impairment. Negative change from baseline indicates less cognitive impairment. MMRM method was used for analysis. | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | score on a scale | Baseline, Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the Participant | The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations and doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on hours per day the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing? Q2= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters? Q3= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you spend supervising (that is, preventing dangerous events) the participant? | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Median | Full Range | hours | Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the Participant | The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on days the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing) services to the participant? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters) services to the participant? Q3= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these services (supervising) to the participant? | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint. | Posted | Median | Full Range | days | Week 12 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare Professional | The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on the number of hospital visits, emergency visits and visits to healthcare professional were reported in this outcome measure using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many times did the participant receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many times did the caregiver receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q3= During the last 30 days total number of visits by participant to a health care professional? Q4= During the last 30 days, how many times (number of visits for each) the participant visited any other health care professional? | mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint. | Posted | Mean | Standard Deviation | Number of visits | Week 12 |
|
From first dose up to 30 days after the last dose of study drug (up to 16 weeks)
All-cause mortality: All Randomized Population included all the participants who were randomized in the study.
Adverse events: Safety Population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. Participants were included in the treatment group based on the actual treatment received.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Placebo | Participants were administered AVP-786 matching placebo capsules, orally, BID for up to 12 weeks. | 0 | 210 | 10 | 210 | 40 | 210 |
| EG001 | AVP-786-28 | Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. | 3 | 151 | 15 | 151 | 31 | 151 |
| EG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. | 0 | 161 | 8 | 160 | 30 | 160 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angina pectoris | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bradycardia | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Myocardial infarction | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Intestinal mass | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vomiting | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diarrhoea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pancreatic insufficiency | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Peptic ulcer | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Small intestinal obstruction | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Asthenia | General disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hyperbilirubinaemia | Hepatobiliary disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pneumonia | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Bronchitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Administration site joint infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urinary tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastroenteritis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Cellulitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastroenteritis viral | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Postoperative wound infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Lumbar vertebral fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fall | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hip Fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Subdural haematoma | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Femur fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Electrocardiogram abnormal | Investigations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Influenza A virus test positive | Investigations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dehydration | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Decreased appetite | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diabetic ketoacidosis | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Muscle spasms | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Lung carcinoma cell type unspecified stage IV | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pancreatic carcinoma metastatic | Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Encephalopathy | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Syncope | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Normal pressure hydrocephalus | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Subarachnoid haemorrhage | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Mental status changes | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Agitation | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute kidney injury | Renal and urinary disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pulmonary mass | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Respiratory failure | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute respiratory failure | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypertension | Vascular disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypertensive crisis | Vascular disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypotension | Vascular disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Haematoma | Vascular disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diarrhoea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Urinary tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Fall | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Somnolence | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Agitation | Psychiatric disorders | MedDRA 18.1 | Systematic Assessment |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Clinical Development | Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. | 1-609-524-6788 | clinicaltransparency@otsuka-us.com |
| Prot_000.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Apr 26, 2019 | Aug 12, 2022 | SAP_001.pdf |
| Male |
|
| Black or African American |
|
| Asian |
|
| American Indian or Alaska Native |
|
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
|
| Other |
|
| Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
| Change from Baseline at Week 12 |
|
|
| MMRM |
| 0.200 |
MMRM included fixed effect treatment, visit, treatment-by-visit, baseline, baseline-by-visit, baseline NPI AA (≤ 6 vs. > 6), risk assessment for falls, baseline concomitant use of antipsychotic medications and cohorts. |
| LS Mean Difference |
| -2.0 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| -5.0 |
| 1.0 |
| Superiority |
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12.
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| AVP-786-28 |
Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| AVP-786-42.63 |
Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12.
|
|
|
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12.
|
|
| AVP-786-42.63 |
Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
|
| AVP-786-28 |
Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12.
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|
Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
| OG002 | AVP-786-42.63 | Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12. |
|
|