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
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
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
Download to PDF
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01566695
Registration number
NCT01566695
Ethics application status
Date submitted
27/03/2012
Date registered
29/03/2012
Date last updated
26/01/2024
Titles & IDs
Public title
The Efficacy and Safety of Oral Azacitidine Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Placebo and Best Supportive Care in Subjects With Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusion-Dependent Anemia and Thrombocytopenia Due to International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) Low Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS)
Query!
Scientific title
A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Azacitidine Plus Best Supportive Care Versus Placebo Plus Best Supportive Care in Subjects With Red Blood Cell Transfusion-dependent Anemia and Thrombocytopenia Due to IPSS Lower-risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes.
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
2012-002471-34
Query!
Secondary ID [2]
0
0
AZA-MDS-003
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Myelodysplastic Syndrome
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Blood
0
0
0
0
Query!
Haematological diseases
Query!
Blood
0
0
0
0
Query!
Other blood disorders
Query!
Other
0
0
0
0
Query!
Research that is not of generic health relevance and not applicable to specific health categories listed above
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Drugs - Oral Azacitidine
Treatment: Drugs - Placebo
Other interventions - Best Supportiv Care (BSC)
Experimental: Oral Azacitidine - Arm 1: Oral azacitidine tablets 300 mg daily (QD) + best supportive care (BSC) on days 1 through 21 of each 28-day treatment cycle.
Placebo comparator: Placebo - Arm 2: Identically matching placebo tablets plus best supportive care on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day treatment cycle.
Treatment: Drugs: Oral Azacitidine
300 mg daily, days 1 to 21 of each 28-day treatment cycle
Treatment: Drugs: Placebo
Identically matching placebo tablets on day 1 to 21 of each 28-day treatment cycle.
Other interventions: Best Supportiv Care (BSC)
BSC included and was not limited to packed RBC (packed red blood cell \[pRBC\] and whole blood), platelet transfusions (single donor or pooled donor), antibiotic, antiviral and/or antifungal therapy, nutritional support, and granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSF) for participants who experienced neutropenic fever/infections.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Drugs
Query!
Intervention code [2]
0
0
Other interventions
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Red Blood Cell (RBC) Transfusion Independence for = 56 Days
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
RBC transfusion (tfx) independence was defined as the absence of any RBC transfusion during any consecutive "rolling" 56 days within the treatment period. Participants who did not receive any RBC transfusion during a consecutive rolling 56 days (i.e., day 1 to day 56, day 2 to day 57) were considered as a 56-day RBC transfusion independent responder.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Each participant was assessed for at least 56 days or more; from the date of randomization of study drug up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019, approximately 5 months.
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Duration of RBC Transfusion Independence Among Participants Who Achieved RBC Transfusion Independence for at Least 56 Days
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
Duration of RBC transfusion independence was analyzed only for participants who achieved RBC transfusion independence of = 56 days on treatment. Duration of RBC transfusion independence was defined as the time from the date transfusion independence is first observed (day 1 of a = 56 days period without a transfusion) until the date the participants had a subsequently documented RBC transfusion. In the event a participant had more than one =56 days rolling periods which met the RBC independence criteria, the duration with the longest rolling period was used in the analysis. Participants who maintained RBC TI through the end of the treatment period were censored at the date of treatment discontinuation, death, or 1 day before the start of the subsequent MDS treatment (if any), whichever occurred first, or the particiapnts latest available assessment date in the database if the treatment was still on-going.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Time to RBC Transfusion Independence for at Least 56 Days Among Participants Who Achieved RBC Transfusion Independence for at Least 56 Days
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
Time to RBC transfusion independence of = 56 days was defined as the time between randomization and the date onset of transfusion independence was first observed (ie, Day 1 of 56 without any RBC transfusions).
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Duration of RBC Transfusion Reduction for Participants Who Achieved RBC Transfusion Reduction of at Least 4 Units of RBCs for at Least 8 Weeks
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
A participant was considered as a RBC transfusion reduction responder if the participant had at least 4 units reduction in transfusion units over any consecutive 56 days period compared to the baseline transfusion units in 56 days.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Red Blood Cell Transfusion Independence for = 84 Days
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
RBC transfusion independence was defined as the absence of any RBC transfusion during any consecutive "rolling" 84 days within the treatment period. Participants who did not receive any RBC transfusion during a consecutive rolling 84 days (i.e., day 1 to day 84, day 2 to day 85) were considered as a 84-day RBC transfusion independent responder.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Duration of RBC Transfusion Independence Among Participants Who Achieved RBC Transfusion Independence for at Least 84 Days
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
Duration of RBC transfusion independence was analyzed only for participants who achieved RBC transfusion independence of = 84 days on treatment. Duration of RBC transfusion independence was defined as the time from the date transfusion independence is first observed (day 1 of a = 84 days period without a transfusion) until the date the participants had a subsequently documented RBC transfusion. In case a participant had more than one =84 days rolling periods which met the RBC independence criteria, the duration with the longest rolling period was used in the analysis.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Time to RBC Transfusion Independence for at Least 84 Days Among Participants Who Achieved RBC Transfusion Independence for at Least 84 Days
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
Time to RBC transfusion independence of = 84 days was defined as the time between randomization and the date onset of transfusion independence was first observed (ie, Day 1 of 84 without any RBC transfusions).
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With an Erythroid Hematological Improvement (HI-E) Response According to 2006 IWG Criteria
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
Erythroid HI-E improvement was defined as a hemoglobin increase of = 1.5 g/dL; or a reduction in units of RBC transfusions by an absolute number of at least 4 RBC transfusions/8 weeks compared with the pretreatment transfusion number in the previous 8 weeks. Only RBC transfusions given for a hemoglobin of = 9.0 g/dL on treatment were counted in the RBC transfusion response evaluation.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Hematological Improvement Response in Platelets (HI-P) According to 2006 IWG Criteria
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
HI-P response was defined according to IWG 2006 criteria (Cheson, 2006) and as: 1. Absolute increase of = 30 X 10\^9/L for participants\^ starting with \> 20 X 10\^9/L platelets; 2. Increase from \< 20 X 10\^9/L to \> 20 X 10\^9/L and by at least 100%. HI-P must have lasted at least 8 weeks.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [9]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved Platelet Transfusion Independence With a Duration of = 8 Weeks (56 Days)
Query!
Assessment method [9]
0
0
Platelet transfusion independence was defined as the absence of any platelet transfusion during any consecutive "rolling" 56 days during the treatment period, (ie, Day 1 to 56, Day 2 to 57, Days 3 to 58, etc.). Participants were considered platelet transfusion dependent at baseline if they had received = 2 platelet transfusions during the 56 days immediately preceding randomization and had no consecutive 28-day period during which no platelet transfusions were administered.
Query!
Timepoint [9]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [10]
0
0
Time to Platelet Transfusion Independence
Query!
Assessment method [10]
0
0
Time to platelet transfusion independence was defined as the time between randomization and the first documented date of onset of transfusion independence (ie, Day 1 of 56 without any platelet transfusions).
Query!
Timepoint [10]
0
0
From the date of randomization of study drug up to the treatment period; up to the data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [11]
0
0
Kaplan-Meier Estimate of Overall Survival (OS)
Query!
Assessment method [11]
0
0
Overall survial was defined as the time from randomization to death from any cause, and was calculated using randomization date and date of death, or date of last follow-up for censored participants. All subjects were followed until drop out (withdrawal of consent from further data collection or lost to follow-up), death, or study closure. Participants who dropped out or were alive at study closure (or at the time of the interim analysis) had their OS times censored at the time of last contact, as appropriate. Overall survival was assessed as an interim analysis at the time of the primary analysis.
Query!
Timepoint [11]
0
0
From randomization to death from any cause; up to the data cut-off of date of 25 January 2019; maximum follow-up time for all participants was 67.9 months for the oral azacitidine arm and 64.8 months for placebo arm
Query!
Secondary outcome [12]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Hematologic Response According to the 2006 IWG Criteria for MDS
Query!
Assessment method [12]
0
0
Hematologic response was defined as:
* A complete response (CR): \<5% myeloblasts, and normal maturation of all cell lines; Peripheral blood (PB) shows: hemoglobin \>10 g/dL, neutrophils =1.0x10\^9/L, platelets =100x10\^9/dL, blasts (0%)
* Partial Response (PR): same as CR bone marrow (BM) shows blasts decreased by = 50% over pre-treatment but still \> 5%; Cellularity and morphology not relevant
* Marrow CR: BM: = 5% myeloblasts and decrease by = 50% over pre-treatment PB
* Stable disease (SD): failure to achieve at least PR, but no evidence of progression for \> 8 wks
* Failure: death during treatment or disease progression
* Disease Progression for those with:
* Less than 5% blasts: = 50% increase in blasts to \> 5% blasts
* 5%-10% blasts:= 50% increase to \> 10% blasts
* 10%-20% blasts:= 50% increase to \> 20% blasts
* 20%-30% blasts = 50% increase to \> 30% blasts
Any of the following:
* = 50% decrease from maximum remission/response in granulocytes or platelets
Query!
Timepoint [12]
0
0
Response was assessed every 3 cycles; up to the data cut-off date of 25 Jan 2019; median duration of exposure to oral azacitidine was 86.0 days and 119.0 days for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [13]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Progressed to Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)
Query!
Assessment method [13]
0
0
Participants with a documented diagnosis of AML arising from previous MDS documented diagnosis.
Query!
Timepoint [13]
0
0
From randomization of study drug to the end up to final data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; maximum follow-up time was 67.9 months for azacitidine and 64.8 months for placebo group
Query!
Secondary outcome [14]
0
0
Time to Progression to Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Among Participants Who Progressed to AML
Query!
Assessment method [14]
0
0
Time to AML progression was defined as the time from the date of randomization until the date the subject has documented progression to AML. For participants who had progression to AML documented in MLL central lab report, the earliest sample collection date with the diagnosis of "s-AML arising from previous MDS" was used as the date to AML progression.
Query!
Timepoint [14]
0
0
From randomization of study drug to progression of AML; up to final data cut-off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [15]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Significant Bleeding Events
Query!
Assessment method [15]
0
0
Clinically significant bleeding event was defined as: any intracranial or retroperitoneal bleed; bleeding requiring transfusions of \> 2 units of blood/blood products; bleeding associated with a decrease in hemoglobin of \> 2 g/dL; or bleeding from any site requiring transfusions of \> 2 units of blood.
Query!
Timepoint [15]
0
0
From date of randomization until 28 days after the last dose of IP; up to data cut off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [16]
0
0
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE)
Query!
Assessment method [16]
0
0
A TEAE was defined as an adverse event that begins or worsens in intensity of frequency on or after the first dose of study drug through 28 days after last dose of study drug.
A serious adverse event (SAE) is any:
* Death;
* Life-threatening event;
* Any inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization;
* Persistent or significant disability or incapacity;
* Congenital anomaly or birth defect;
* Any other important medical event The investigator determined the relationship of an AE to study drug based on the timing of the AE relative to drug administration and whether or not other drugs, therapeutic interventions, or underlying conditions could provide a sufficient explanation for the event. The severity of an AE was evaluated by the investigator according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI CTCAE) (Version 4.0) where Grade 1 = Mild, Grade 2 = Moderate, Grade 3 = Severe, Grade 4 = Life-threatening and Grade 5 = Death.
Query!
Timepoint [16]
0
0
From first dose of IP up to 28 days after the last dose of IP; up to data cut-off date of 25 Jan 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitaidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [17]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Physical Well-Being Component of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An) Endpoints at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [17]
0
0
The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being (PWG), social/family (SWB), emotional well being (EWB) and Functional Well-Being (FWB) and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue associated items and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 1 to 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general health related quality of life (HRQoL), the FACT-An measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various therapeutic areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 indicates the poorest QOL and 100 denotes the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [17]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [18]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Social Well-Being Component of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [18]
0
0
The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being (PWG), social/family (SWB), emotional well being (EWB) and Functional Well-Being (FWB) and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue associated items and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 1 to 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general health related quality of life (HRQoL), the FACT-An measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various therapeutic areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 indicates the poorest QOL and 100 denotes the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [18]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [19]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Emotional Well-Being Component of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [19]
0
0
The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being (PWG), social/family (SWB), emotional well being (EWB) and Functional Well-Being (FWB) and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue associated items and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 1 to 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general health related quality of life (HRQoL), the FACT-An measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various therapeutic areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 indicates the poorest QOL and 100 denotes the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [19]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [20]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Functional Well-Being Component of the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [20]
0
0
The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being (PWG), social/family (SWB), emotional well being (EWB) and Functional Well-Being (FWB) and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue associated items and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 1 to 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general health related quality of life (HRQoL), the FACT-An measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various therapeutic areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 indicates the poorest QOL and 100 denotes the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [20]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [21]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Anemia Subscale Within FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [21]
0
0
The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being (PWG), social/family (SWB), emotional well being (EWB) and Functional Well-Being (FWB) and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue associated items and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 1 to 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general health related quality of life (HRQoL), the FACT-An measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various therapeutic areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 indicates the poorest QOL and 100 denotes the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [21]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [22]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Fatigue-Related Subscale Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [22]
0
0
The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being (PWG), social/family (SWB), emotional well being (EWB) and Functional Well-Being (FWB) and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue associated items and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 1 to 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general health related quality of life (HRQoL), the FACT-An measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various therapeutic areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 indicates the poorest QOL and 100 denotes the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [22]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [23]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia Trial Outcome Index (FACT-An TOI) Summary Scale Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [23]
0
0
The FACT-G and FACT-An score are summed to form the FACT-An total score. The FACT-An Trial Outcome Index (TOI) consists of the summation of a "summary scale" and includes the Physical Well-being, (PWB; 7 items; score range, 0-28), the Functional Well-being (7 items; score range, 0-28) and the Anemia subscale consisting of 20 items on the same five-point scale, with 13 of them measuring fatigue related symptoms (FS) and seven measuring non-FS. The FACT-An TOI has been demonstrated to be a sensitive indicator of clinical outcomes in a number of diseases including MDS. The Fact-TOI score ranges from 0 to 136. Higher scores on all scales of the Fact-An and subscales on the FACT-TOI reflect better quality of life or fewer symptoms.
Query!
Timepoint [23]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [24]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia-General (FACT-G) Summary Scale Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [24]
0
0
The FACT-An is a 47-item, cancer-specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27-item general questionnaire (i.e., the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General \[FACT-G\]) The FACT-G measures the 4 domains on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The 4 domains are:
* Physical Well-being (PWB; 7 items; score range, 0-28),
* Social/Family Well-being (SWB; 7 items; score range, 0-28),
* Emotional Well-being (EWB; 6 items; score range, 0-24), and
* Functional Well-being (7 items; score range, 0-28). The FACT-G is a summation composed of a "summary scale" including the PWB, SWB, EWB and FWB. The FACT-G score range is from 0 to 108. For all summary scales including FACT-G, a higher score indicates better HRQoL or lower level of symptoms.
Query!
Timepoint [24]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [25]
0
0
Mean Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia-Total Score at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [25]
0
0
The FACT-G and the anemia subscale (AnS) are summed to form the FACT-An total score and the total score ranges from 0 to 188. The FACT-G measures the 4 domains on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). The 4 domains are:
* Physical Well-being (PWB; 7 items; score range, 0-28),
* Social/Family Well-being (SWB; 7 items; score range, 0-28),
* Emotional Well-being (EWB; 6 items; score range, 0-24), and
* Functional Well-being (7 items; score range, 0-28). The AnS consists of 20 items on the same 5-point scale, with 13 of them measuring fatigue-related symptoms (FS) and 7 measuring non-FS. The AnS and FS scores can range from 0-80 and 0-52, respectively. For all domains and summary subscales, a higher score indicates better HRQoL or lower level of symptoms.
Query!
Timepoint [25]
0
0
Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [26]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline on the Physical Well-Being Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [26]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [26]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [27]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline on the Social Well-Being Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [27]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [27]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [28]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline on the Emotional Well-Being Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [28]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [28]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [29]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline on the Functional Well-Being Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [29]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [29]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [30]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline on the Anemia Subscale Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [30]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [30]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [31]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline in the Fatigue Related Symptoms Subscale Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [31]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [31]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [32]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia Trial Outcome Index Subscale Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [32]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [32]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [33]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvment (CMI) From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia-General Subscale Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [33]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [33]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [34]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a Clinically Meaningful Improvement (CMI) From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Anemia-Total Score Domain Within the FACT-An Instrument at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [34]
0
0
A clinically meaningful improvement or deterioration was defined by domain specific thresholds of change from baseline. The FACT-An questionnaire is a 47-item, cancer specific questionnaire consisting of a core 27 items measuring 4 general domains physical well being, social/family, emotional well being and Functional Well-Being and an additional 20-item anemia questionnaire that measures fatigue and 7 non-fatigue items. The scales are formatted on 4 pages for self-administration using a 5-point Likert rating scale (0 = Not at all; 1 = A little bit; 2 = Somewhat; 3 = Quite a Bit and 4 = Very much). Also, general HRQoL measures the impact of fatigue and other anemia-related symptoms on patient functioning and is used to assess the effect of treatments in various areas, including MDS. The instrument and the fatigue and non-fatigue subscales are scored by summing points from all questions, then converting this sum to a 100 point scale; 0 = the poorest QOL and 100 = the highest QOL.
Query!
Timepoint [34]
0
0
Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [35]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Change From Baseline in Responses to the Fact-Anemia Item GP-5
Query!
Assessment method [35]
0
0
The distribution (frequency and percentage) of the observed responses (i.e., "Not at all (0)," "A little bit (1)," "Somewhat (2)," "Quite a bit (3)," "Very much (4)," and missing) to Item GP-5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment" in the past seven days) of the FACT-An at each scheduled visit were summarized for each treatment group. The denominator for the percentage calculation per treatment group was based on the number of the FACT-An evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (improved \[i.e., change score from 1 to 4\], no change \[0\], worsened by one level \[-1\], worsened by =2 levels \[-2 to -4\], and missing) from baseline at each post-baseline scheduled visit were summarized by treatment group.
Query!
Timepoint [35]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 2 Day 1 (C2D1)
Query!
Secondary outcome [36]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Change From Baseline in Responses to the Fact-Anemia Item GP-5
Query!
Assessment method [36]
0
0
The distribution (frequency and percentage) of the observed responses (i.e., "Not at all (0)," "A little bit (1)," "Somewhat (2)," "Quite a bit (3)," "Very much (4)," and missing) to Item GP-5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment" in the past seven days) of the FACT-An at each scheduled visit were summarized for each treatment group. The denominator for the percentage calculation per treatment group was based on the number of the FACT-An evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (improved \[i.e., change score from 1 to 4\], no change \[0\], worsened by one level \[-1\], worsened by =2 levels \[-2 to -4\], and missing) from baseline at each post-baseline scheduled visit were summarized by treatment group.
Query!
Timepoint [36]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 3 Day 1 (C3D1)
Query!
Secondary outcome [37]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Change From Baseline in Responses to the Fact-Anemia Item GP-5
Query!
Assessment method [37]
0
0
The distribution (frequency and percentage) of the observed responses (i.e., "Not at all (0)," "A little bit (1)," "Somewhat (2)," "Quite a bit (3)," "Very much (4)," and missing) to Item GP-5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment" in the past seven days) of the FACT-An at each scheduled visit were summarized for each treatment group. The denominator for the percentage calculation per treatment group was based on the number of the FACT-An evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (improved \[i.e., change score from 1 to 4\], no change \[0\], worsened by one level \[-1\], worsened by =2 levels \[-2 to -4\], and missing) from baseline at each post-baseline scheduled visit were summarized by treatment group.
Query!
Timepoint [37]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 4 Day 1 (C4D1)
Query!
Secondary outcome [38]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Change From Baseline in Responses to the Fact-Anemia Item GP-5
Query!
Assessment method [38]
0
0
The distribution (frequency and percentage) of the observed responses (i.e., "Not at all (0)," "A little bit (1)," "Somewhat (2)," "Quite a bit (3)," "Very much (4)," and missing) to Item GP-5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment" in the past seven days) of the FACT-An at each scheduled visit were summarized for each treatment group. The denominator for the percentage calculation per treatment group was based on the number of the FACT-An evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (improved \[i.e., change score from 1 to 4\], no change \[0\], worsened by one level \[-1\], worsened by =2 levels \[-2 to -4\], and missing) from baseline at each post-baseline scheduled visit were summarized by treatment group.
Query!
Timepoint [38]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 5 Day 1 (C5D1)
Query!
Secondary outcome [39]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Change From Baseline in Responses to the Fact-Anemia Item GP-5
Query!
Assessment method [39]
0
0
The distribution (frequency and percentage) of the observed responses (i.e., "Not at all (0)," "A little bit (1)," "Somewhat (2)," "Quite a bit (3)," "Very much (4)," and missing) to Item GP-5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment" in the past seven days) of the FACT-An at each scheduled visit were summarized for each treatment group. The denominator for the percentage calculation per treatment group was based on the number of the FACT-An evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (improved \[i.e., change score from 1 to 4\], no change \[0\], worsened by one level \[-1\], worsened by =2 levels \[-2 to -4\], and missing) from baseline at each post-baseline scheduled visit were summarized by treatment group.
Query!
Timepoint [39]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1 (C6 D1)
Query!
Secondary outcome [40]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Change From Baseline in Responses to the Fact-Anemia Item GP-5
Query!
Assessment method [40]
0
0
The distribution (frequency and percentage) of the observed responses (i.e., "Not at all (0)," "A little bit (1)," "Somewhat (2)," "Quite a bit (3)," "Very much (4)," and missing) to Item GP-5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment" in the past seven days) of the FACT-An at each scheduled visit were summarized for each treatment group. The denominator for the percentage calculation per treatment group was based on the number of the FACT-An evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (improved \[i.e., change score from 1 to 4\], no change \[0\], worsened by one level \[-1\], worsened by =2 levels \[-2 to -4\], and missing) from baseline at each post-baseline scheduled visit were summarized by treatment group.
Query!
Timepoint [40]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 7 Day 1 (C7D1)
Query!
Secondary outcome [41]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Change From Baseline in Responses to the Fact-Anemia Item GP-5
Query!
Assessment method [41]
0
0
The distribution (frequency and percentage) of the observed responses (i.e., "Not at all (0)," "A little bit (1)," "Somewhat (2)," "Quite a bit (3)," "Very much (4)," and missing) to Item GP-5 ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment" in the past seven days) of the FACT-An at each scheduled visit were summarized for each treatment group. The denominator for the percentage calculation per treatment group was based on the number of the FACT-An evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (improved \[i.e., change score from 1 to 4\], no change \[0\], worsened by one level \[-1\], worsened by =2 levels \[-2 to -4\], and missing) from baseline at each post-baseline scheduled visit were summarized by treatment group.
Query!
Timepoint [41]
0
0
From Baseline to End of Treatment
Query!
Secondary outcome [42]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Improved, Worsened, or No Change in the European Quality of Life-Five Dimension-Three Level (EQ-5D-3L) Mobility Dimension Responses at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [42]
0
0
The EQ-5D-3L is a generic, self-administered questionnaire that consists of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, pain, usual activities, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels of severity corresponding to no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. It also includes a Visual Analog Scale that recorded the respondent's self-rated health on a vertical, 0-100 scale, where 100 = Best imaginable health state and 0 = Worst imaginable health state. Distribution of the observed responses (i.e., no problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and missing) of the 5 dimensions at each visit was summarized per arm. The denominator for the percentage calculation per group was based on the number of the EQ-5D-3L evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (i.e., improved \[by =1 level\], no change, worsened \[by =1 level\], and missing) from baseline are reported.
Query!
Timepoint [42]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [43]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Improved, Worsened, or No Change in the European Quality of Life-Five Dimension-Three Level of Self-Care Dimension Responses at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [43]
0
0
The EQ-5D-3L is a generic, self-administered questionnaire that consists of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, pain, usual activities, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels of severity corresponding to no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. It also includes a Visual Analog Scale that recorded the respondent's self-rated health on a vertical, 0-100 scale, where 100 = Best imaginable health state and 0 = Worst imaginable health state. Distribution of the observed responses (i.e., no problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and missing) of the 5 dimensions at each visit was summarized per arm. The denominator for the percentage calculation per group was based on the number of the EQ-5D-3L evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (i.e., improved \[by =1 level\], no change, worsened \[by =1 level\], and missing) from baseline are reported.
Query!
Timepoint [43]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [44]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Improved, Worsened, or No Change in the European Quality of Life-Five Dimension-Three Level Usual Activities Dimension Responses at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [44]
0
0
TThe EQ-5D-3L is a generic, self-administered questionnaire that consists of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, pain, usual activities, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels of severity corresponding to no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. It also includes a Visual Analog Scale that recorded the respondent's self-rated health on a vertical, 0-100 scale, where 100 = Best imaginable health state and 0 = Worst imaginable health state. Distribution of the observed responses (i.e., no problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and missing) of the 5 dimensions at each visit was summarized per arm. The denominator for the percentage calculation per group was based on the number of the EQ-5D-3L evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (i.e., improved \[by =1 level\], no change, worsened \[by =1 level\], and missing) from baseline are reported.
Query!
Timepoint [44]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [45]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Improved, Worsened, or No Change in the European Quality of Life-Five Dimension-Three Level in the Pain/Discomfort Dimension Responses at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [45]
0
0
The EQ-5D-3L is a generic, self-administered questionnaire that consists of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, pain, usual activities, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels of severity corresponding to no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. It also includes a Visual Analog Scale that recorded the respondent's self-rated health on a vertical, 0-100 scale, where 100 = Best imaginable health state and 0 = Worst imaginable health state. Distribution of the observed responses (i.e., no problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and missing) of the 5 dimensions at each visit was summarized per arm. The denominator for the percentage calculation per group was based on the number of the EQ-5D-3L evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (i.e., improved \[by =1 level\], no change, worsened \[by =1 level\], and missing) from baseline are reported.
Query!
Timepoint [45]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [46]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Improved, Worsened, or No Change in the European Quality of Life-Five Dimension-Three Level in the Anxiety/Depression Dimension Responses at Cycle 6
Query!
Assessment method [46]
0
0
The EQ-5D-3L is a generic, self-administered questionnaire that consists of 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, pain, usual activities, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 3 levels of severity corresponding to no problems, some problems, and extreme problems. It also includes a Visual Analog Scale that recorded the respondent's self-rated health on a vertical, 0-100 scale, where 100 = Best imaginable health state and 0 = Worst imaginable health state. Distribution of the observed responses (i.e., no problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and missing) of the 5 dimensions at each visit was summarized per arm. The denominator for the percentage calculation per group was based on the number of the EQ-5D-3L evaluable population at baseline. The distribution of change in responses (i.e., improved \[by =1 level\], no change, worsened \[by =1 level\], and missing) from baseline are reported.
Query!
Timepoint [46]
0
0
From Baseline to Cycle 6 Day 1
Query!
Secondary outcome [47]
0
0
Healthcare Resource Utilization (HRU): Number of Participants Who Were Hospitalized During the Treatment Period
Query!
Assessment method [47]
0
0
The number of reasons for hospitalizations and hospital admissions during the treatment period were monitored and include those associated with: AEs, protocol-driven procedures, transfusions, non-protocol procedures, elective procedures or those associated with social, practical or technical reasons in the absence of AEs. HRU was defined as any consumption of healthcare resources directly or indirectly related to the treatment of the patient.
Query!
Timepoint [47]
0
0
From date of randomization up to 28 days after the last dose of study drug; up to data cut off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitaidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [48]
0
0
Healthcare Resource Utilization (HRU): Total Number of Days Hospitalized Due to Any Reason During the Treatment Period
Query!
Assessment method [48]
0
0
The total number of days hospitalized due to any reason during the treatment period was monitored. HRU was defined as any consumption of healthcare resources directly or indirectly related to the treatment of the patient.
Query!
Timepoint [48]
0
0
From date of randomization up to 28 days after the last dose of study drug; up to data cut off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitaidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Secondary outcome [49]
0
0
Healthcare Resource Utilization (HRU): Total Number of Days Hospitalized Per Total Patient-Years
Query!
Assessment method [49]
0
0
The number of days hospitalized per total patient years. HRU was defined as any consumption of healthcare resources directly or indirectly related to the treatment of the patient.
Query!
Timepoint [49]
0
0
From date of randomization up to 28 days after the last dose of study drug; up to data cut off date of 25 January 2019; median duration of treatment to oral azacitaidine was 5.29 months and 5.36 months for placebo
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
* 18 years or older
* Have a documented diagnosis of MDS
* Anemia that requires red blood cell transfusions
* Thrombocytopenia (sustained for at least 21 days) within 14 days prior to randomization
* Have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, 1, or 2
* Must agree to follow pregnancy precautions as required by protocol.
* Understand and voluntarily sign an informed consent document prior to any study related assessments/procedures being conducted
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
* Secondary or hypoplastic MDS or other subtype with eligibility for treatment with immunotherapy
* Prior treatment with azacitidine, decitabine, other hypomethylating agents and lenalidomide (for lenalidomide : unless the last dose received is >= 8 weeks prior to inclusion into the study).
* Prior allogeneic or autologous stem cell transplant
* Eligible for allogenic or autologous stem cell transplant
* History of inflammatory bowel disease (eg, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis), celiac disease (ie, sprue), prior gastrectomy or upper bowel removal, or any other gastrointestinal disorder or defect
* Thrombocytopenia secondary to other possible causes, including medication(s), congenital disorder(s), immune disorder(s), or microvascular disorder(s)
* Use of cytotoxic, chemotherapeutic, targeted or investigational agents/therapies, thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents (TSAs), erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and other red blood cell hematopoietic growth factors, and within 28 days prior to randomization
* Ongoing medically significant adverse events from previous treatment, regardless of the time period
* Concurrent use of iron-chelating agents, (except for subjects on a stable or decreasing dose for at least 8 weeks (56 days) prior to randomization), corticosteroid (except for subjects on a stable or decreasing dose for = 1 week prior to randomization for medical conditions other than MDS)
* Prior history of cancer, other than MDS, unless the subject has been free of the disease for = 3 years. (Basal or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, carcinoma in situ of the cervix, carcinoma in situ of the breast, and incidental histologic finding of prostate cancer) (T1a or T1b using the tumor, nodes, metastasis [TNM] clinical staging system is allowed)
* Significant active cardiac disease within the previous 6 months
* Uncontrolled systemic fungal, bacterial, or viral infection
* Known Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or Hepatitis C (HCV) infection, or evidence of active Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) infection
* Known clinically significant anemia due to iron, vitamin B12, or folate deficiencies, or autoimmune or hereditary hemolytic anemia, or gastrointestinal bleeding
* Abnormal coagulation parameters
* Abnormal liver function test results
* Abnormal kidney function test results
* Known or suspected hypersensitivity to azacitidine or mannitol
* Any significant medical condition, laboratory abnormality, or psychiatric illness
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
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
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s
The people administering the treatment/s
The people assessing the outcomes
The people analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
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
26/04/2013
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
21/12/2023
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
216
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
ACT,SA,VIC
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
Local Institution - 137 - Garran
Query!
Recruitment hospital [2]
0
0
Local Institution - 129 - Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment hospital [3]
0
0
Local Institution - 134 - Clayton
Query!
Recruitment hospital [4]
0
0
Local Institution - 132 - Frankston
Query!
Recruitment hospital [5]
0
0
Local Institution - 131 - Camperdown
Query!
Recruitment hospital [6]
0
0
Local Institution - 127 - Epping, VIC
Query!
Recruitment hospital [7]
0
0
Local Institution - 133 - Fitzroy
Query!
Recruitment hospital [8]
0
0
Local Institution - 135 - Kogarah
Query!
Recruitment hospital [9]
0
0
Local Institution - 130 - Malvern
Query!
Recruitment hospital [10]
0
0
Local Institution - 126 - Milton, Brisbane
Query!
Recruitment hospital [11]
0
0
Local Institution - 138 - Waratah
Query!
Recruitment hospital [12]
0
0
Local Institution - 136 - Woolloongabba
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
2605 - Garran
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
0
0
SA 5000 - Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [3]
0
0
3168 - Clayton
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [4]
0
0
3199 - Frankston
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [5]
0
0
2050 - Camperdown
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [6]
0
0
3076 - Epping, VIC
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [7]
0
0
3065 - Fitzroy
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [8]
0
0
2217 - Kogarah
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [9]
0
0
3144 - Malvern
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [10]
0
0
4064 - Milton, Brisbane
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [11]
0
0
NSW - Waratah
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [12]
0
0
QLD 4102 - Woolloongabba
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
California
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
Connecticut
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
Florida
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Georgia
Query!
Country [5]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [5]
0
0
Illinois
Query!
Country [6]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [6]
0
0
Kansas
Query!
Country [7]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [7]
0
0
Kentucky
Query!
Country [8]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [8]
0
0
Louisiana
Query!
Country [9]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [9]
0
0
Maryland
Query!
Country [10]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [10]
0
0
Massachusetts
Query!
Country [11]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [11]
0
0
Minnesota
Query!
Country [12]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [12]
0
0
Mississippi
Query!
Country [13]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [13]
0
0
Missouri
Query!
Country [14]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [14]
0
0
Nebraska
Query!
Country [15]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [15]
0
0
New York
Query!
Country [16]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [16]
0
0
North Carolina
Query!
Country [17]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [17]
0
0
Ohio
Query!
Country [18]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [18]
0
0
Oregon
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
Texas
Query!
Country [21]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [21]
0
0
Virginia
Query!
Country [22]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [22]
0
0
Washington
Query!
Country [23]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [23]
0
0
Wisconsin
Query!
Country [24]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [24]
0
0
Brasschaat
Query!
Country [25]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [25]
0
0
Brugge
Query!
Country [26]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [26]
0
0
Charleroi
Query!
Country [27]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [27]
0
0
Leuven
Query!
Country [28]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [28]
0
0
Ceará
Query!
Country [29]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [29]
0
0
Paraná
Query!
Country [30]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [30]
0
0
Rio Grande Do Sul
Query!
Country [31]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [31]
0
0
Rio De Janeiro
Query!
Country [32]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [32]
0
0
Sao Paulo
Query!
Country [33]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [33]
0
0
Alberta
Query!
Country [34]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [34]
0
0
British Columbia
Query!
Country [35]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [35]
0
0
Ontario
Query!
Country [36]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [36]
0
0
Quebec
Query!
Country [37]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [37]
0
0
Jihomoravský Kraj
Query!
Country [38]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [38]
0
0
Hradec Králové
Query!
Country [39]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [39]
0
0
Olomouc
Query!
Country [40]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [40]
0
0
Praha
Query!
Country [41]
0
0
Denmark
Query!
State/province [41]
0
0
Aarhus
Query!
Country [42]
0
0
Denmark
Query!
State/province [42]
0
0
Odense C
Query!
Country [43]
0
0
Denmark
Query!
State/province [43]
0
0
Roskilde
Query!
Country [44]
0
0
Finland
Query!
State/province [44]
0
0
Helsinki
Query!
Country [45]
0
0
Finland
Query!
State/province [45]
0
0
Turku
Query!
Country [46]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [46]
0
0
Lille
Query!
Country [47]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [47]
0
0
Marseille Cedex 9
Query!
Country [48]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [48]
0
0
Nantes
Query!
Country [49]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [49]
0
0
Paris
Query!
Country [50]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [50]
0
0
Pierre-Bénite Cedex
Query!
Country [51]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [51]
0
0
Rennes Cedex
Query!
Country [52]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [52]
0
0
Rouen Cedex
Query!
Country [53]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [53]
0
0
Strasbourg
Query!
Country [54]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [54]
0
0
Toulouse Cedex 9
Query!
Country [55]
0
0
France
Query!
State/province [55]
0
0
Tours
Query!
Country [56]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [56]
0
0
Dresden
Query!
Country [57]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [57]
0
0
Duesseldorf
Query!
Country [58]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [58]
0
0
Dusseldorf
Query!
Country [59]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [59]
0
0
Hamburg
Query!
Country [60]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [60]
0
0
Keil
Query!
Country [61]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [61]
0
0
Leipzig
Query!
Country [62]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [62]
0
0
München
Query!
Country [63]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [63]
0
0
Tubingen
Query!
Country [64]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [64]
0
0
Ulm
Query!
Country [65]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [65]
0
0
Irakleio
Query!
Country [66]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [66]
0
0
Alexandroupolis
Query!
Country [67]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [67]
0
0
Athens
Query!
Country [68]
0
0
Greece
Query!
State/province [68]
0
0
Patras
Query!
Country [69]
0
0
Israel
Query!
State/province [69]
0
0
Tel Aviv
Query!
Country [70]
0
0
Israel
Query!
State/province [70]
0
0
Haifa
Query!
Country [71]
0
0
Israel
Query!
State/province [71]
0
0
Petach Tikva
Query!
Country [72]
0
0
Israel
Query!
State/province [72]
0
0
Tel Hashomer
Query!
Country [73]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [73]
0
0
Alessandria
Query!
Country [74]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [74]
0
0
Bari
Query!
Country [75]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [75]
0
0
Bologna
Query!
Country [76]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [76]
0
0
Cagliari
Query!
Country [77]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [77]
0
0
Firenze
Query!
Country [78]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [78]
0
0
Lecce
Query!
Country [79]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [79]
0
0
Milano
Query!
Country [80]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [80]
0
0
Milan
Query!
Country [81]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [81]
0
0
Novara
Query!
Country [82]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [82]
0
0
Palermo
Query!
Country [83]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [83]
0
0
Pavia
Query!
Country [84]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [84]
0
0
Pisa
Query!
Country [85]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [85]
0
0
Reggio Calabria
Query!
Country [86]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [86]
0
0
Rionero in Vulture
Query!
Country [87]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [87]
0
0
Roma
Query!
Country [88]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [88]
0
0
Terni
Query!
Country [89]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [89]
0
0
Torino
Query!
Country [90]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [90]
0
0
Torrette Di Ancona
Query!
Country [91]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [91]
0
0
Udine
Query!
Country [92]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [92]
0
0
Venezia - Mestre
Query!
Country [93]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [93]
0
0
Busan
Query!
Country [94]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [94]
0
0
Daegu
Query!
Country [95]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [95]
0
0
Seoul
Query!
Country [96]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [96]
0
0
Huixquilucan de Degollado
Query!
Country [97]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [97]
0
0
Monterrey
Query!
Country [98]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [98]
0
0
Tlalpan
Query!
Country [99]
0
0
Netherlands
Query!
State/province [99]
0
0
Amsterdam
Query!
Country [100]
0
0
Netherlands
Query!
State/province [100]
0
0
Groningen
Query!
Country [101]
0
0
Netherlands
Query!
State/province [101]
0
0
Nijmegen
Query!
Country [102]
0
0
Netherlands
Query!
State/province [102]
0
0
Rotterdam
Query!
Country [103]
0
0
Norway
Query!
State/province [103]
0
0
Førde
Query!
Country [104]
0
0
Norway
Query!
State/province [104]
0
0
Oslo
Query!
Country [105]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [105]
0
0
Bydgoszcz
Query!
Country [106]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [106]
0
0
Gdansk
Query!
Country [107]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [107]
0
0
Krakow
Query!
Country [108]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [108]
0
0
Lodz
Query!
Country [109]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [109]
0
0
Torun
Query!
Country [110]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [110]
0
0
Warszawa
Query!
Country [111]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [111]
0
0
Wroclaw
Query!
Country [112]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [112]
0
0
Beja
Query!
Country [113]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [113]
0
0
Coimbra
Query!
Country [114]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [114]
0
0
Lisboa
Query!
Country [115]
0
0
Portugal
Query!
State/province [115]
0
0
Porto
Query!
Country [116]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [116]
0
0
Badalona (Barcelona)
Query!
Country [117]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [117]
0
0
Barcelona
Query!
Country [118]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [118]
0
0
Granada
Query!
Country [119]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [119]
0
0
Madrid
Query!
Country [120]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [120]
0
0
Malaga
Query!
Country [121]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [121]
0
0
Oviedo
Query!
Country [122]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [122]
0
0
Salamanca
Query!
Country [123]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [123]
0
0
Seville
Query!
Country [124]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [124]
0
0
Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava
Query!
Country [125]
0
0
Sweden
Query!
State/province [125]
0
0
Goeteborg
Query!
Country [126]
0
0
Sweden
Query!
State/province [126]
0
0
Lund
Query!
Country [127]
0
0
Sweden
Query!
State/province [127]
0
0
Stockholm
Query!
Country [128]
0
0
Turkey
Query!
State/province [128]
0
0
Adana
Query!
Country [129]
0
0
Turkey
Query!
State/province [129]
0
0
Antalya
Query!
Country [130]
0
0
Turkey
Query!
State/province [130]
0
0
Istanbul
Query!
Country [131]
0
0
Turkey
Query!
State/province [131]
0
0
Mersin
Query!
Country [132]
0
0
Turkey
Query!
State/province [132]
0
0
Trabzon
Query!
Country [133]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [133]
0
0
Oxfordshire
Query!
Country [134]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [134]
0
0
Aberdeen
Query!
Country [135]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [135]
0
0
Birmingham
Query!
Country [136]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [136]
0
0
Bristol
Query!
Country [137]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [137]
0
0
Cambridge
Query!
Country [138]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [138]
0
0
Cardiff
Query!
Country [139]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [139]
0
0
Harrow Middlesex
Query!
Country [140]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [140]
0
0
Hull
Query!
Country [141]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [141]
0
0
Leicester
Query!
Country [142]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [142]
0
0
Liverpool
Query!
Country [143]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [143]
0
0
London
Query!
Country [144]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [144]
0
0
Manchester
Query!
Country [145]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [145]
0
0
Nottingham
Query!
Country [146]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [146]
0
0
Sutton in Ashfield
Query!
Country [147]
0
0
United Kingdom
Query!
State/province [147]
0
0
Wolverhampton
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name
Celgene
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Azacitidine plus Best Supportive care versus Placebo and Best Supportive care in subjects with red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia due to International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS).
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01566695
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Garcia-Manero G, Almeida A, Giagounidis A, Platzbecker U, Garcia R, Voso MT, Larsen SR, Valcarcel D, Silverman LR, Skikne B, Santini V. Design and rationale of the QUAZAR Lower-Risk MDS (AZA-MDS-003) trial: a randomized phase 3 study of CC-486 (oral azacitidine) plus best supportive care vs placebo plus best supportive care in patients with IPSS lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes and poor prognosis due to red blood cell transfusion-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia. BMC Hematol. 2016 May 3;16:12. doi: 10.1186/s12878-016-0049-5. eCollection 2016. Garcia-Manero G, Santini V, Almeida A, Platzbecker U, Jonasova A, Silverman LR, Falantes J, Reda G, Buccisano F, Fenaux P, Buckstein R, Diez Campelo M, Larsen S, Valcarcel D, Vyas P, Giai V, Oliva EN, Shortt J, Niederwieser D, Mittelman M, Fianchi L, La Torre I, Zhong J, Laille E, Lopes de Menezes D, Skikne B, Beach CL, Giagounidis A. Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of CC-486 (Oral Azacitidine) in Patients With Lower-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2021 May 1;39(13):1426-1436. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.02619. Epub 2021 Mar 25.
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Query!
Address
0
0
Bristol-Myers Squibb
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
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Type
Other Details
Attachment
Study protocol
https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/95/NCT01566695/Prot_001.pdf
Statistical analysis plan
https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/95/NCT01566695/SAP_000.pdf
Results publications and other study-related documents
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Results are available at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01566695
Download to PDF