Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Register a trial
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03654274
Registration number
NCT03654274
Ethics application status
Date submitted
29/08/2018
Date registered
31/08/2018
Titles & IDs
Public title
SPIRIT EXTENSION: Efficacy and Safety Extension Study of Relugolix in Women With Endometriosis-Associated Pain
Query!
Scientific title
SPIRIT EXTENSION: An International Phase 3 Open-Label, Single-Arm, Safety and Efficacy Extension Study to Evaluate Relugolix Co-Administered With Low-Dose Estradiol and Norethindrone Acetate in Women With Endometriosis-Associated Pain
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
2017-004066-10
Query!
Secondary ID [2]
0
0
MVT-601-3103
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Endometriosis
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Reproductive Health and Childbirth
0
0
0
0
Query!
Other reproductive health and childbirth disorders
Query!
Reproductive Health and Childbirth
0
0
0
0
Query!
Menstruation and menopause
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Drugs - Relugolix
Treatment: Drugs - Estradiol/norethindrone acetate
Experimental: Relugolix plus E2/NETA - Relugolix co-administered with E2/NETA for 80 weeks.
Treatment: Drugs: Relugolix
Relugolix 40-mg tablet administered orally once daily
Treatment: Drugs: Estradiol/norethindrone acetate
Capsule containing co-formulated tablet of E2 (1.0 mg) and NETA (0.5 mg) administered orally once daily
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Drugs
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Meet The Dysmenorrhea Responder Criteria At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. A participant was defined as a responder if the NRS score for dysmenorrhea declined from baseline to Week 52 by at least 2.8 points without increased use of protocol-specified analgesics for pelvic pain at Week 52 relative to baseline. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Primary outcome [2]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Meet The NMPP Responder Criteria At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. A participant was defined as a responder if the NRS score for NMPP declined from baseline to Week 52 by at least 2.1 points without increased use of protocol-specified analgesics for pelvic pain at Week 52 relative to baseline. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Primary outcome [3]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Meet The Dysmenorrhea Responder Criteria At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. A participant was defined as a responder if the NRS score for dysmenorrhea declined from baseline to Week 104 by at least 2.8 points without increased use of protocol-specified analgesics for pelvic pain at Week 104 relative to baseline. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Primary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Meet The NMPP Responder Criteria At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. A participant was defined as a responder if the NRS score for NMPP declined from baseline to Week 104 by at least 2.1 points without increased use of protocol-specified analgesics for pelvic pain at Week 104 relative to baseline. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP)-30 Pain Domain Scores At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
Assessed using the pain domain of the EHP-30 questionnaire. The EHP-30 questionnaire was completed on an electronic tablet (eTablet) device. Participants reported the frequency (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always) with which they had difficulty with activities such as standing, sitting, walking, sleeping, and performing jobs around the house because of pain. The Pain Domain normalized scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores denoting greater functional impact of pain. The least squares (LS) mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP)-30 Pain Domain Scores At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
Assessed using the pain domain of the EHP-30 questionnaire. The EHP-30 questionnaire was completed on an electronic tablet (eTablet) device. Participants reported the frequency (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always) with which they had difficulty with activities such as standing, sitting, walking, sleeping, and performing jobs around the house because of pain. The Pain Domain normalized scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores denoting greater functional impact of pain. The least squares (LS) mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Have A Reduction Of At Least 20 Points In The EHP-30 Pain Domain Scores From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
Assessed using the Pain Domain of the EHP-30 questionnaire. The EHP-30 questionnaire was completed on an electronic tablet (eTablet) device. Participants reported the frequency (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always) with which they had difficulty with activities such as standing, sitting, walking, sleeping, and performing jobs around the house because of pain. The Pain Domain normalized scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores denoting greater functional impact of pain.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Have A Reduction Of At Least 20 Points In The EHP-30 Pain Domain Scores From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
Assessed using the Pain Domain of the EHP-30 questionnaire. The EHP-30 questionnaire was completed on an electronic tablet (eTablet) device. Participants reported the frequency (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always) with which they had difficulty with activities such as standing, sitting, walking, sleeping, and performing jobs around the house because of pain. The Pain Domain normalized scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores denoting greater functional impact of pain.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Dysmenorrhea NRS Score At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Dysmenorrhea NRS Score At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Are "Better" Or "Much Better" On The Patient Global Impression Of Change (PGIC) For Dysmenorrhea At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
The PGIC for dysmenorrhea is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of change in the severity of pain during their menstrual cycle. The questionnaire used a 7-point response scale: much better, better, a little better, the same, a little worse, worse, or much worse.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean NMPP NRS Score At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [9]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean NMPP NRS Score At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [9]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants rated their pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [9]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [10]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Overall Pelvic Pain NRS Score At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [10]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for overall pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants rated their overall pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [10]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [11]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Overall Pelvic Pain NRS Score At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [11]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for overall pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants rated their overall pelvic pain on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [11]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [12]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Not Using Opioids For Endometriosis-associated Pain At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [12]
0
0
Assessed based on usage of study-specified opioids for endometriosis-associated pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants received protocol-specified opioids for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain as needed for pain but not prophylactically.
Query!
Timepoint [12]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [13]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Not Using Analgesics For Endometriosis-associated Pain At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [13]
0
0
Assessed based on usage of study-specified analgesics for endometriosis-associated pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants received protocol-specified analgesics for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain as needed for pain but not prophylactically.
Query!
Timepoint [13]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [14]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Are "Better" Or "Much Better" On The PGIC For NMPP At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [14]
0
0
The PGIC for NMPP is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of change in the severity of pain when they are not menstruating. The questionnaire used a 7-point response scale: much better, better, a little better, the same, a little worse, worse, or much worse.
Query!
Timepoint [14]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [15]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Dyspareunia NRS Scores At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [15]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants were to report whether they had vaginal sexual intercourse and rated their level of pelvic pain during intercourse on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [15]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [16]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Dyspareunia NRS Scores At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [16]
0
0
Assessed using an NRS score (11-point scale) for pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants were to report whether they had vaginal sexual intercourse and rated their level of pelvic pain during intercourse on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating pain as bad as you can imagine. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [16]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [17]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants Who Are "Better" Or "Much Better" On The PGIC For Dyspareunia At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [17]
0
0
The PGIC for dyspareunia is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of change in the severity of their pain during sexual intercourse. The questionnaire used a 7-point response scale: much better, better, a little better, the same, a little worse, worse, or much worse.
Query!
Timepoint [17]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [18]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Dyspareunia Functional Impairment At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [18]
0
0
Assessed using the participant-modified Biberoglu and Behrman 5-point scale for dyspareunia recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants were to report their pain during intercourse daily using the following response options: Severe (avoids intercourse because of pain), Moderate (intercourse painful to the point of causing interruption), Mild (tolerated pain), No pain (no pain during intercourse), or No intercourse (no intercourse for other reasons). Participants gave a possible score of 0 (no pain) to 3 (severe). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [18]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [19]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In The Mean Dyspareunia Functional Impairment At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [19]
0
0
Assessed using the participant-modified Biberoglu and Behrman 5-point scale for dyspareunia recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants were to report their pain during intercourse daily using the following response options: Severe (avoids intercourse because of pain), Moderate (intercourse painful to the point of causing interruption), Mild (tolerated pain), No pain (no pain during intercourse), or No intercourse (no intercourse for other reasons). Participants gave a possible score of 0 (no pain) to 3 (severe). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [19]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [20]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Severity Scores On The Patient Global Assessment (PGA) For Overall Pelvic Pain At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [20]
0
0
The PGA for pelvic pain severity is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of the severity of their pain. The questionnaire used a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: absent (0), mild (1), moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [20]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [21]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Severity Scores On The Patient Global Assessment (PGA) For Overall Pelvic Pain At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [21]
0
0
The PGA for pelvic pain severity is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of the severity of their pain. The questionnaire used a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: absent (0), mild (1), moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [21]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [22]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants With Improvement, No Change, Or Worsening From Baseline In PGA Score For Overall Pelvic Pain At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [22]
0
0
The PGA for pelvic pain severity is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of the severity of their pain. The questionnaire used a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: absent (0), mild (1), moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4).
Query!
Timepoint [22]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [23]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants With Improvement, No Change, Or Worsening From Baseline In PGA Score For Overall Pelvic Pain At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [23]
0
0
The PGA for pelvic pain severity is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of the severity of their pain. The questionnaire used a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: absent (0), mild (1), moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4).
Query!
Timepoint [23]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [24]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Function Impairment On The PGA For Function At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [24]
0
0
The PGA for functional impairment is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of how their pain affected their usual activities. The participants responded to the question: "How much were your daily activities limited by endometriosis over the last 4 weeks?" using a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: not at all (0), minimally (1), moderately (2), significantly (3), or very significantly (4). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [24]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [25]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Function Impairment On The PGA For Function At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [25]
0
0
The PGA for functional impairment is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of how their pain affected their usual activities. The participants responded to the question: "How much were your daily activities limited by endometriosis over the last 4 weeks?" using a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: not at all (0), minimally (1), moderately (2), significantly (3), or very significantly (4). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [25]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [26]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants With Improvement, No Change, Or Worsening From Baseline In PGA Score For Function At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [26]
0
0
The PGA for functional impairment is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of how their pain affected their usual activities. The participants responded to the question: "How much were your daily activities limited by endometriosis over the last 4 weeks?" using a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: not at all (0), minimally (1), moderately (2), significantly (3), or very significantly (4).
Query!
Timepoint [26]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [27]
0
0
Percentage Of Participants With Improvement, No Change, Or Worsening From Baseline In PGA Score For Function At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [27]
0
0
The PGA for functional impairment is a 1-item questionnaire designed to assess participant's impression of how their pain affected their usual activities. The participants responded to the question: "How much were your daily activities limited by endometriosis over the last 4 weeks?" using a 5-point response scale; each response was given a numerical score: not at all (0), minimally (1), moderately (2), significantly (3), or very significantly (4).
Query!
Timepoint [27]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [28]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Each Of The Non-Pain EHP-30 Domains At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [28]
0
0
Assessed using the following non-pain domains of the EHP-30 questionnaire: Control and Powerlessness (questions 12 through 17), Emotional Well-Being (questions 18 through 23), Social Support (questions 24 through 27), and Self-Image (questions 28 through 30). The score for each domain ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores represent a greater impact of endometriosis. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [28]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [29]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Each Of The Non-Pain EHP-30 Domains At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [29]
0
0
Assessed using the following non-pain domains of the EHP-30 questionnaire: Control and Powerlessness (questions 12 through 17), Emotional Well-Being (questions 18 through 23), Social Support (questions 24 through 27), and Self-Image (questions 28 through 30). The score for each domain ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores represent a greater impact of endometriosis. The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [29]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [30]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Dysmenorrhea Functional Impairment Score At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [30]
0
0
Assessed using the participant-modified Biberoglu and Behrman 5-point scale for dysmenorrhea recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants were to report their pain as related to functional impairment daily in an electronic diary using the following response options: Severe (in bed all day, incapacitation), Moderate (in bed part of the day, some loss of work efficiency), Mild (some loss of work efficiency), No pain (no pain associated with menstruation during past 24 hours), or did not menstruate during the past 24 hours. Participants gave a possible score of 0 (no pain) to 4 (did not menstruate). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [30]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [31]
0
0
Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Dysmenorrhea Functional Impairment Score At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [31]
0
0
Assessed using the participant-modified Biberoglu and Behrman 5-point scale for dysmenorrhea recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants were to report their pain as related to functional impairment daily in an electronic diary using the following response options: Severe (in bed all day, incapacitation), Moderate (in bed part of the day, some loss of work efficiency), Mild (some loss of work efficiency), No pain (no pain associated with menstruation during past 24 hours), or did not menstruate during the past 24 hours. Participants gave a possible score of 0 (no pain) to 4 (did not menstruate). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [31]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [32]
0
0
Change From Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In NMPP Functional Impairment Score At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [32]
0
0
Assessed using the participant-modified Biberoglu and Behrman 4-point scale for pelvic pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants reported their pain daily in an electronic diary using the following response options: Severe (requires strong analgesics), Moderate (noticeable pelvic pain), Mild (occasional pelvic pain), or No pain (no pain during past 24 hours). Participants gave a possible score of 0 (no pain) to 3 (severe). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [32]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [33]
0
0
Change From Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In NMPP Functional Impairment Score At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [33]
0
0
Assessed using the participant-modified Biberoglu and Behrman 4-point scale for pelvic pain recorded daily in an electronic diary. Participants reported their pain daily in an electronic diary using the following response options: Severe (requires strong analgesics), Moderate (noticeable pelvic pain), Mild (occasional pelvic pain), or No pain (no pain during past 24 hours). Participants gave a possible score of 0 (no pain) to 3 (severe). The LS mean was presented by pivotal study treatment group and by visit.
Query!
Timepoint [33]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [34]
0
0
Percent Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In BMD At Lumbar Spine (L1-L4), Femoral Neck, And Total Hip At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [34]
0
0
Assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck (same leg for each participant) at each designated time point. All participants who completed treatment or terminated from the study early were required to return for a 6-month post-treatment follow-up (PTFU) and a 12-month PTFU DXA scan (except if participant was beyond 14 months from last day on treatment). Participants were also to have clinical laboratory evaluations (vitamin D, thyroid stimulating hormone, parathyroid hormone, creatinine, calcium, and phosphorous) at the 6-month and 12-month PTFU only if the PTFU DXA scans showed a bone loss of =3% at the lumbar spine and/or total hip compared with the parent study baseline.
Query!
Timepoint [34]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [35]
0
0
Percent Change From The Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In BMD At Lumbar Spine (L1-L4), Femoral Neck, And Total Hip At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [35]
0
0
Assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck (same leg for each participant) at each designated time point. All participants who completed treatment or terminated from the study early were required to return for a 6-month post-treatment follow-up (PTFU) and a 12-month PTFU DXA scan (except if participant was beyond 14 months from last day on treatment). Participants were also to have clinical laboratory evaluations (vitamin D, thyroid stimulating hormone, parathyroid hormone, creatinine, calcium, and phosphorous) at the 6-month and 12-month PTFU only if the PTFU DXA scans showed a bone loss of =3% at the lumbar spine and/or total hip compared with the parent study baseline.
Query!
Timepoint [35]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [36]
0
0
Change From Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Predose Serum Concentrations Of Estradiol At Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [36]
0
0
Blood samples were collected from participants for estradiol measurements at each specified timepoints. Estradiol concentrations were measured using an immuno-enzymatic assay based on a commercially available kit.
Query!
Timepoint [36]
0
0
Week 52
Query!
Secondary outcome [37]
0
0
Change From Pivotal Phase 3 Study Baseline In Predose Serum Concentrations Of Estradiol At Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [37]
0
0
Blood samples were collected from participants for estradiol measurements at each specified timepoints. Estradiol concentrations were measured using an immuno-enzymatic assay based on a commercially available kit.
Query!
Timepoint [37]
0
0
Week 104
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
Key
1. Completed 24 weeks of study drug treatment and study participation in either parent study, MVT-601-3101 or MVT-601-3102.
2. Is not expected to undergo gynecological surgery or other surgical procedures for treatment of endometriosis (including ablation, shaving, or excision) during the study, including during the Follow-Up Period, and the participant does not desire such treatment during this time frame.
3. Has agreed to continue to use only study-specified analgesic medications during the study and is not known to be intolerant to these.
Key
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
51
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
1. Has had a surgical procedure for treatment for endometriosis at any time during the parent study (MVT-601-3101 or MVT-601-3102).
2. Has any chronic pain or frequently recurring pain condition, other than endometriosis, that is treated with opioids or requires analgesics for = 7 days per month.
3. Has a Z-score < -2.0 or has a = 7% decrease in bone mineral density from the parent study Baseline at lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck based on the parent study Week 24 DXA assessment of bone mineral density.
4. Has any contraindication to treatment with low-dose E2 and NETA, including:
1. Known, suspected, or history of breast cancer;
2. Known or suspected estrogen-dependent neoplasia;
3. Active deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, or history of these conditions prior to the Week 24/Baseline visit;
4. History of or active arterial thromboembolic disease, including stroke and myocardial infarction;
5. Known anaphylactic reaction or angioedema or hypersensitivity to E2 or NETA;
6. Known protein C, protein S, or antithrombin deficiency, or other known thrombophilia disorders, including Factor V Leiden;
7. Migraine with aura;
8. History of porphyria.
5. Had any of the following clinical laboratory abnormalities at the parent study Week 20 visit or, if available, any subsequent visit in one of the parent studies (MVT-601-3101 or MVT-601-3102):
1. Alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase > 2.0 times the upper limit of normal (ULN); or
2. Bilirubin (total bilirubin) > 1.5 x ULN (or > 2.0 x ULN if secondary to Gilbert syndrome or pattern consistent with Gilbert syndrome).
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
NA
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Single group
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 3
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
22/05/2018
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
31/01/2023
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
802
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
NSW,NSQLD,SA,WA
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
Sydney - Sydney
Query!
Recruitment hospital [2]
0
0
Wollongong - Wollongong
Query!
Recruitment hospital [3]
0
0
Taringa - Taringa
Query!
Recruitment hospital [4]
0
0
Adelaide - Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment hospital [5]
0
0
Nedlands - Nedlands
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
2000 - Sydney
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
0
0
2522 - Wollongong
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [3]
0
0
4068 - Taringa
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [4]
0
0
5000 - Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [5]
0
0
6009 - Nedlands
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
Alabama
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
Arizona
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
California
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Colorado
Query!
Country [5]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [5]
0
0
District of Columbia
Query!
Country [6]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [6]
0
0
Florida
Query!
Country [7]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [7]
0
0
Georgia
Query!
Country [8]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [8]
0
0
Idaho
Query!
Country [9]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [9]
0
0
Illinois
Query!
Country [10]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [10]
0
0
Kansas
Query!
Country [11]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [11]
0
0
Louisiana
Query!
Country [12]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [12]
0
0
Maryland
Query!
Country [13]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [13]
0
0
Michigan
Query!
Country [14]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [14]
0
0
Missouri
Query!
Country [15]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [15]
0
0
Nebraska
Query!
Country [16]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [16]
0
0
Nevada
Query!
Country [17]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [17]
0
0
North Carolina
Query!
Country [18]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [18]
0
0
Ohio
Query!
Country [19]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [19]
0
0
Pennsylvania
Query!
Country [20]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [20]
0
0
South Carolina
Query!
Country [21]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [21]
0
0
Tennessee
Query!
Country [22]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [22]
0
0
Texas
Query!
Country [23]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [23]
0
0
Utah
Query!
Country [24]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [24]
0
0
Virginia
Query!
Country [25]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [25]
0
0
Washington
Query!
Country [26]
0
0
Argentina
Query!
State/province [26]
0
0
Buenos Aires
Query!
Country [27]
0
0
Argentina
Query!
State/province [27]
0
0
Santa Fe
Query!
Country [28]
0
0
Argentina
Query!
State/province [28]
0
0
Cordoba
Query!
Country [29]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [29]
0
0
Flemish Brabant
Query!
Country [30]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [30]
0
0
Hainaut
Query!
Country [31]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [31]
0
0
Oost-vlaanderen
Query!
Country [32]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [32]
0
0
Brussels
Query!
Country [33]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [33]
0
0
Rio Grande Do Sul
Query!
Country [34]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [34]
0
0
Sao Paulo
Query!
Country [35]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [35]
0
0
Sofiya
Query!
Country [36]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [36]
0
0
Blagoevgrad
Query!
Country [37]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [37]
0
0
Pleven
Query!
Country [38]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [38]
0
0
Stara Zagora
Query!
Country [39]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [39]
0
0
Varna
Query!
Country [40]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [40]
0
0
Alberta
Query!
Country [41]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [41]
0
0
Ontario
Query!
Country [42]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [42]
0
0
Quebec
Query!
Country [43]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [43]
0
0
Santiago
Query!
Country [44]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [44]
0
0
Jihocesky Kraj
Query!
Country [45]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [45]
0
0
Jihocesky
Query!
Country [46]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [46]
0
0
Jihormoravsky Kraj
Query!
Country [47]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [47]
0
0
Kralovehradecky
Query!
Country [48]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [48]
0
0
Praha
Query!
Country [49]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [49]
0
0
Olomouc
Query!
Country [50]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [50]
0
0
Praha 8 - Liben
Query!
Country [51]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [51]
0
0
Ceské Budejovice
Query!
Country [52]
0
0
Finland
Query!
State/province [52]
0
0
Eastern Finland
Query!
Country [53]
0
0
Finland
Query!
State/province [53]
0
0
Southern Finland
Query!
Country [54]
0
0
Finland
Query!
State/province [54]
0
0
Oulu
Query!
Country [55]
0
0
Georgia
Query!
State/province [55]
0
0
Tbilisi
Query!
Country [56]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [56]
0
0
Bacs-kiskun
Query!
Country [57]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [57]
0
0
Baranya
Query!
Country [58]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [58]
0
0
Bekes
Query!
Country [59]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [59]
0
0
Csongrad
Query!
Country [60]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [60]
0
0
Hajdu-bihar
Query!
Country [61]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [61]
0
0
Szabolcs-szatmar-bereg
Query!
Country [62]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [62]
0
0
Cagliari
Query!
Country [63]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [63]
0
0
Catanzaro
Query!
Country [64]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [64]
0
0
Napoli
Query!
Country [65]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [65]
0
0
Pavia
Query!
Country [66]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [66]
0
0
Roma
Query!
Country [67]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [67]
0
0
Auckland
Query!
Country [68]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [68]
0
0
Manawatu-wanganui
Query!
Country [69]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [69]
0
0
Christchurch
Query!
Country [70]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [70]
0
0
Lodzkie
Query!
Country [71]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [71]
0
0
Lubelskie
Query!
Country [72]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [72]
0
0
Mazowieckie
Query!
Country [73]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [73]
0
0
Podlaskie
Query!
Country [74]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [74]
0
0
Slaskie
Query!
Country [75]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [75]
0
0
Wielkopolskie
Query!
Country [76]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [76]
0
0
Zachodniopomorskie
Query!
Country [77]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [77]
0
0
Lisboa
Query!
Country [78]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [78]
0
0
Coimbra
Query!
Country [79]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [79]
0
0
Covilhã
Query!
Country [80]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [80]
0
0
Porto
Query!
Country [81]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [81]
0
0
Brasov
Query!
Country [82]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [82]
0
0
Bucuresti
Query!
Country [83]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [83]
0
0
Bucure?ti
Query!
Country [84]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [84]
0
0
Eastern Cape
Query!
Country [85]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [85]
0
0
Gauteng
Query!
Country [86]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [86]
0
0
Kwazulu-natal
Query!
Country [87]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [87]
0
0
Western Cape
Query!
Country [88]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [88]
0
0
Madrid
Query!
Country [89]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [89]
0
0
Valencia
Query!
Country [90]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [90]
0
0
Kiev City
Query!
Country [91]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [91]
0
0
Kiev
Query!
Country [92]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [92]
0
0
Chernivtsi
Query!
Country [93]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [93]
0
0
Ivano-Frankivsk
Query!
Country [94]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [94]
0
0
Kharkiv
Query!
Country [95]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [95]
0
0
Kyiv
Query!
Country [96]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [96]
0
0
Zaporizhzhya
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name
Myovant Sciences GmbH
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of relugolix 40 milligram (mg) once daily co-administered with low-dose estradiol (E2) and norethindrone acetate (NETA) for up to 104 weeks on endometriosis-associated pain in participants who previously completed a 24-week treatment period in one of the parent studies (MVT-601-3101 or MVT-601-3102).
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03654274
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Myovant Medical Monitor
Query!
Address
0
0
Myovant Sciences
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
0
0
Query!
Address
0
0
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
No
Query!
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment
Query!
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Type
Other Details
Attachment
Study protocol
https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/74/NCT03654274/Prot_000.pdf
Statistical analysis plan
https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/74/NCT03654274/SAP_001.pdf
Results publications and other study-related documents
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Results are available at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03654274