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 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/ct2/show/NCT00895895
Registration number
NCT00895895
Ethics application status
Date submitted
7/05/2009
Date registered
8/05/2009
Date last updated
31/01/2013
Titles & IDs
Public title
Study Comparing 3 Dosage Levels Of SAM-531 In Outpatients With Mild To Moderate Alzheimer Disease
Query!
Scientific title
A 52-Week, Two-Period, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Donepezil-Referenced, Placebo-Controlled, Efficacy And Safety Study Of 3 Dosage Levels Of SAM-531 In Outpatients With Mild To Moderate Alzheimer Disease
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
B1961007
Query!
Secondary ID [2]
0
0
3193A1-2005
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Alzheimer Disease
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Neurological
0
0
0
0
Query!
Alzheimer's disease
Query!
Neurological
0
0
0
0
Query!
Dementias
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Drugs - Placebo
Treatment: Drugs - SAM-531 1.5 mg
Treatment: Drugs - SAM-531 3.0 mg
Treatment: Drugs - SAM-531 5.0 mg
Treatment: Drugs - Donepezil
Placebo Comparator: 1 - Placebo
Experimental: 2 - SAM-531 1.5 mg
Experimental: 3 - SAM-531 3.0 mg
Experimental: 4 - SAM-531 5.0 mg
Active Comparator: 5 - Donepezil
Treatment: Drugs: Placebo
Capsules SAM-531 placebo and 5 mg tablet encapsulated Donepezil placebo capsules, once a day during 24 weeks.
Treatment: Drugs: SAM-531 1.5 mg
Capsules SAM-531 1.5 mg, once a day during 52 weeks.
Treatment: Drugs: SAM-531 3.0 mg
Capsules SAM-531 3.0 mg, once a day during 52 weeks.
Treatment: Drugs: SAM-531 5.0 mg
Capsules SAM-531 5.0 mg, once a day during 24 weeks or 52 weeks.
Treatment: Drugs: Donepezil
Encapsulated Donepezil 5 mg tablets, once a day during 52 weeks. After Day 42, the dose can up titrated up to 10 mg of Donepezil.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Drugs
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Change From Baseline in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognition (ADAS-Cog) Total Score at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
14-item scale to assess severity of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer's Disease. Items: word recall, naming objects and fingers, following commands, constructional praxis, ideational praxis, orientation, word recognition, recall of test instructions, spoken language ability, word-finding difficulty, comprehension of spoken language, concentration/distractibility, number cancellation and executive maze. Rating scale ranged from 0 (not present) to 5 (severe). Total score was sum of individual scores (items 1-11) and ranged from 0 to 70 with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) Total Score at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
Caregiver interview-based instrument assessing 10 areas of activities of daily living (ADL) to measure participant's actual performance over the previous 2 weeks. Items included hygiene, dressing, continence, eating, meal preparation, telephoning, outings, finance/correspondence, medications and leisure/housework. Responses scored as 1 (yes) or 0 (no), response of "Not Applicable" was not scored. Total DAD score was sum of scores for 40 items, expressed as a percentage of the number of items answered yes or no. Total score ranged from 0 to 100, higher scores represented less disability in ADL.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Neuropsychiatry Inventory (NPI) at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
Caregiver interview-based rating scale assessed 10 behavioral, 2 neurovegetative disturbances occurring in dementia: delusions, hallucination, agitation/aggression, depression, anxiety, elation/euphoria, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, irritability, aberrant motor behavior, appetite/eating disorders and sleep/nightime behavior disorders. Each symptom score derived by symptom frequency (1 [occasionally] to 4 [very frequently] * symptom severity (1 [mild] to 3 [severe]) and ranged 0-12. Total score = sum of symptom scores; range 0-144, higher score indicating greater behavioral disturbances
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Number of Participants With Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Scores at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
Caregiver and participant interview-based tool to rate the overall impression of participant's clinical change of the disease over time. Areas covered in the interview include: relevant history, observation/evaluation, mental/cognitive state, behavior and functioning. Change categorized into 1 of 7 categories: marked improvement, moderate improvement, minimal improvement, no change, minimal worsening, moderate worsening, marked worsening.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) Paired Associate Learning (PAL)Total Errors (N, Shapes, Adjusted) at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
CANTAB PAL-assessed visual memory/new learning using one or more patterns randomly displayed in boxes on a screen. Participants were to touch the box where patterns first appeared. Stage 1 (practice) and difficulty increased Stage 2 (2 patterns) to Stage 6 (6 patterns). When all locations correctly identified moved to next Stage. Test terminated when a stage could not be completed in 6 attempts. Total Errors=total number of incorrect boxes chosen plus adjustment for estimated possible errors on problems, attempts, and recalls not reached. Total score 0 to 106, lower scores=better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB PAL - Number of Patterns Reached at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
CANTAB PAL-assessed visual memory/new learning using one or more patterns randomly displayed in boxes on a screen. Participants were to touch the box where patterns first appeared. Stage 1 (practice) and difficulty increased Stage 2 (2 patterns) to Stage 6 (6 patterns). When all locations correctly identified moved to next Stage. Test terminated when a stage could not be completed in 6 attempts. Total score was the number of patterns presented at last stage successfully completed and ranged from 2 to 6, higher scores indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB PAL - First Trial Memory Score, Patterns at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
CANTAB PAL-assessed visual memory/new learning using one or more patterns randomly displayed in boxes on a screen. Participants were to touch the box where patterns first appeared. Stage 1 (practice) and difficulty increased Stage 2 (2 patterns) to Stage 6 (6 patterns). When all locations correctly identified moved to next Stage. Test terminated when a stage could not be completed in 6 attempts. Total score was the number of correct choices made on the first attempt at each Stage. Total score ranged from 0 to 20, higher scores indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB Spatial Working Memory (SWM) - Between Errors (4 Boxes) at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
CANTAB-SWM assessed participant's retention of spatial information, ability to manipulate remembered items and strategize. Participant asked to find tokens in on-screen boxes, move them. Difficulty ranged 4-8 boxes to assess, 2 trials per assessment. Between errors: number of times participant revisited a box where a token previously found. In 4 box assessments the maximum number of errors per trial was 20. Test ended with 20 errors in a trial. Less than 20 errors in both trials the participant went to the next level of difficulty. Scores ranged from 0 to 39. Lower scores: better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB-SWM - Between Errors (6 Boxes) at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
CANTAB-SWM assessed participant's retention of spatial information, ability to manipulate remembered items and strategize. Participant asked to find tokens in on-screen boxes, move them. Difficulty ranged 4-8 boxes to assess, 2 trials per assessment. Between errors: number of times participant revisited a box where a token previously found. In 6 box assessments the maximum number of errors per trial was 30. Test ended with 30 errors in a trial. Less than 30 errors in both trials the participant went to the next level of difficulty. Scores ranged from 0 to 59. Lower scores: better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [9]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB SWM - Between Errors (8 Boxes) at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [9]
0
0
CANTAB-SWM assessed participant's retention of spatial information, ability to manipulate remembered items and strategize. Participant asked to find tokens in on-screen boxes, move them. Difficulty ranged 4-8 boxes to assess, 2 trials per assessment. Between errors: number of times participant revisited a box where a token previously found. In 8 box assessments the maximum number of errors per trial was 40. Test ended with 40 errors in a trial. Less than 40 errors in both trials the participant went to the next level of difficulty. Scores ranged from 0 to 79. Lower scores: better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [9]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [10]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB SWM - Between Errors (N Boxes) at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [10]
0
0
CANTAB-SWM assessed participant's retention of spatial information, ability to manipulate remembered items and strategize. Participant was asked to find tokens in on-screen boxes and move them. Difficulty ranged from 4 to 8 box assessments, 2 trials for each assessment. Possible errors for each successful assessment: 4 box 0-38; 6 box 0-58; 8 box 0-78. Between Errors for N Boxes was the cumulative number of errors per each successful trial. Total scores ranged from 0 to 175. Lower scores indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [10]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [11]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB SWM Strategy at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [11]
0
0
CANTAB-SWM assessed participant's ability to strategize. Participant was asked to find tokens in on-screen boxes and move them. Difficulty ranged from 4 to 8 box assessments, 2 trials per assessment. Strategy score was the number of unique boxes the participant searched in the two 6 and 8 box trials. 6 box trial scores ranged from 1 (1 box searched for all 6 tokens) to 6 (6 boxes searched for 6 tokens). 8 box trial score ranged from 1 (1 box searched) to 8 (8 boxes searched for 8 tokens). Total of the 4 trial scores ranged from 4 to 28. Lower score indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [11]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [12]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB Pattern Recognition Memory (PRM)-Mean Correct Latency at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [12]
0
0
CANTAB-PRM assessed participant's visual pattern recognition memory in a 2-choice forced discrimination paradigm. Participants presented with a series of 12 visual patterns singly. In recognition phase, participants were required to choose between a pattern previously seen and a novel pattern. Patterns in the recognition phase appeared sequentially in reverse order on the screen. Assessment was repeated with 12 new patterns. Latency in correct responses ranged from 0 to infinity millisecond (msec), lower scores indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [12]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [13]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB PRM-Percentage Correct at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [13]
0
0
CANTAB-PRM assessed participant's visual pattern recognition memory in a 2-choice forced discrimination paradigm. Participants presented with a series of 12 visual patterns singly. In recognition phase, participants were required to choose between a pattern previously seen and a novel pattern. Patterns in the recognition phase appeared sequentially in reverse order on the screen. Assessment was repeated with 12 new patterns. Correct response total expressed as a percentage, ranged from 0 to 100, higher scores indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [13]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [14]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB Reaction Time (RTI) Five-Choice Accuracy at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [14]
0
0
CANTAB-RTI assessed participant's reaction, movement time and vigilance during a 5-choice reaction time trial and to measure anticipatory/premature and perseverative responses. In the trial, a yellow spot appeared on a computer screen in 1 of 5 locations, the participant responded by letting go of a press pad and touching the screen where the spot appeared. 5-Choice Accuracy was the total number of trials where participant responded correctly. Total ranged from 0 to 30, higher score indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [14]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [15]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB RTI Five-Choice Movement Time at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [15]
0
0
CANTAB-RTI assessed participant's reaction, movement time and vigilance during 5-choice reaction time trial and also measured anticipatory/premature responses. In the test, a yellow spot appeared on a computer screen in 1 of 5 locations, the participant responded by letting go of a press pad and touching the screen where the spot appeared. 5-Choice Movement Time was the time from release of press pad to screen touch where the spot had been in trials the participant responded correctly. Possible score ranged from 100 to 5100 msec, lower score indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [15]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [16]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB RTI Five-Choice Reaction Time at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [16]
0
0
CANTAB-RTI assessed participant's reaction, movement time and vigilance during 5-choice reaction time trial and also measured anticipatory/premature responses. In the test, a yellow spot appeared on a computer screen in 1 of 5 locations, the participant responded by letting go of a press pad and touching the screen where the spot appeared. 5-Choice Reaction Time was the time from appearance of yellow spot on computer screen to time to release press pad in trials the participant responded correctly. Total ranged from 100 to 5100 (maximum allowed) msec, lower score indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [16]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [17]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB RTI Simple Movement Time at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [17]
0
0
CANTAB-RTI assessed participant's reaction, movement time and vigilance during simple (1 choice) reaction time trial and also measured anticipatory/premature responses. In the test, 1 yellow spot appeared on a computer screen in 1 location, the participant responded by letting go of a press pad and touching the screen where the spot appeared. Simple Movement Time was the time from release of press pad to touch the screen where the spot had been in trials the participant responded correctly. Total ranged from 100 to 5100 (maximum allowed) msec, lower score indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [17]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [18]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CANTAB RTI Simple Reaction Time at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [18]
0
0
CANTAB-RTI assessed participant's reaction, movement time and vigilance during simple (1 choice) reaction time trial and also measured anticipatory/premature responses. In the test, 1 yellow spot appeared on a computer screen in 1 location, the participant responded by letting go of a press pad and touching the screen where the spot appeared. Simple Reaction Time was the time from appearance of yellow spot on computer screen to time to release press pad in trials the participant responded correctly. Total ranged from 100 to 5100 (maximum allowed) msec, lower score indicated better performance.
Query!
Timepoint [18]
0
0
Baseline, Week 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [19]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Were Responders at Week 24
Query!
Assessment method [19]
0
0
Responder defined as a participant who demonstrated an improvement of at least 3 points from baseline in the ADAS-Cog total score and no worsening in the DAD total score and in ADCS-CGIC. Participants were considered a responder at Week 24 if all 3 criteria were met.
Query!
Timepoint [19]
0
0
Week 24
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
- Diagnosis of probable Alzheimer Disease according to the National Institute of
Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke-Alzheimer's Diseases and Related
Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria.
- Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 12 to 24 at screening
- Rosen Modified Hachinski Ischemic score < or equal to 4 at screening.
Query!
Minimum age
50
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
- Relevant neurologic disease other than Alzheimer Disease that may affect cognition or
ability to complete the study.
- Current major depressive disorder or other current major psychiatric disorder.
- History of clinically evident stroke or clinically important carotid or
vertebrobasilar stenosis or plaque.
- Use of prescription or nonprescription medications for cognitive enhancement
(including memantine, ginkgo biloba, huperzine A, and cholinesterase inhibitors)
within 3 months before the baseline visit.
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 analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 2
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Terminated
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/05/2009
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/05/2011
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
526
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
Arizona
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
California
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
Colorado
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Florida
Query!
Country [5]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [5]
0
0
Georgia
Query!
Country [6]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [6]
0
0
Illinois
Query!
Country [7]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [7]
0
0
Missouri
Query!
Country [8]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [8]
0
0
New York
Query!
Country [9]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [9]
0
0
Ohio
Query!
Country [10]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [10]
0
0
Oklahoma
Query!
Country [11]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [11]
0
0
Oregon
Query!
Country [12]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [12]
0
0
Pennsylvania
Query!
Country [13]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [13]
0
0
Tennessee
Query!
Country [14]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [14]
0
0
Vermont
Query!
Country [15]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [15]
0
0
Wisconsin
Query!
Country [16]
0
0
Argentina
Query!
State/province [16]
0
0
Buenos Aires
Query!
Country [17]
0
0
Argentina
Query!
State/province [17]
0
0
Ciudad de Buenos Aires
Query!
Country [18]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [18]
0
0
Santiago
Query!
Country [19]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [19]
0
0
Vina del Mar
Query!
Country [20]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [20]
0
0
Cundinamarca
Query!
Country [21]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [21]
0
0
Risaralda
Query!
Country [22]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [22]
0
0
Santander
Query!
Country [23]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [23]
0
0
Valle
Query!
Country [24]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [24]
0
0
Valle del Cauca
Query!
Country [25]
0
0
Hong Kong
Query!
State/province [25]
0
0
Hong Kong SAR, China
Query!
Country [26]
0
0
Hong Kong
Query!
State/province [26]
0
0
Hong Kong
Query!
Country [27]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [27]
0
0
Tokyo
Query!
Country [28]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [28]
0
0
Chiba
Query!
Country [29]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [29]
0
0
Fukuoka
Query!
Country [30]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [30]
0
0
Hiroshima
Query!
Country [31]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [31]
0
0
Kanagawa
Query!
Country [32]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [32]
0
0
Kumamoto
Query!
Country [33]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [33]
0
0
Kyoto
Query!
Country [34]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [34]
0
0
Nagano
Query!
Country [35]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [35]
0
0
Nagasaki
Query!
Country [36]
0
0
Japan
Query!
State/province [36]
0
0
Shizuoka
Query!
Country [37]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [37]
0
0
Gyeonggi-do
Query!
Country [38]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [38]
0
0
Seoul
Query!
Country [39]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [39]
0
0
Coahuila
Query!
Country [40]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [40]
0
0
Aguascalientes
Query!
Country [41]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [41]
0
0
Auckland
Query!
Country [42]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [42]
0
0
Hamilton
Query!
Country [43]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [43]
0
0
Krakow
Query!
Country [44]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [44]
0
0
Poznan
Query!
Country [45]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [45]
0
0
Wroclaw
Query!
Country [46]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [46]
0
0
Dolj
Query!
Country [47]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [47]
0
0
Timis
Query!
Country [48]
0
0
Romania
Query!
State/province [48]
0
0
Bucuresti
Query!
Country [49]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [49]
0
0
Gatchina district, Leningrad region
Query!
Country [50]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [50]
0
0
Kazan
Query!
Country [51]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [51]
0
0
Moscow
Query!
Country [52]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [52]
0
0
Novosibirsk
Query!
Country [53]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [53]
0
0
Saint-Petersburg
Query!
Country [54]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [54]
0
0
Smolensk
Query!
Country [55]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [55]
0
0
Yaroslavl
Query!
Country [56]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [56]
0
0
Free State
Query!
Country [57]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [57]
0
0
Gauteng
Query!
Country [58]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [58]
0
0
Western Cape
Query!
Country [59]
0
0
South Africa
Query!
State/province [59]
0
0
Cape Town
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name
Pfizer
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
The study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of an investigational drug called SAM-531 at
three dosage levels. Subjects will receive either one of the 3 dosage levels of SAM-531,
donepezil or placebo for the first 24 weeks of the study (period I). Subjects who receive
placebo for period I will be assigned to receive the highest dose of SAM-531 SAM-531 for the
remaining 28 weeks of the study, while subjects who received one of the three SAM-531 dosage
levels or donepezil in period I will continue with the same study drug (period II).
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00895895
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center
Query!
Address
0
0
Pfizer
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
Summary Results
For IPD and results data, please see
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00895895
Download to PDF