Trial · NCT01432236
Registered outcomes22
Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.
1 to 20 of 22
Download this page as JSON| List | Outcome | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Mean NRS Pain Score at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | The daily pain diary consists of an 11-point numeric scale (NRS) ranging from 0 ("no pain") to 10 ("worst possible pain"). Participants describe their pain during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number between 0 and 10. The endpoint mean pain scores for Period 1 and Period 2 are defined as the mean of the last 7 non-missing daily diary pain ratings while taking study medication in the double-blind phase during Period 1 and Period 2, respectively. |
| Secondary | Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) Score at Baseline. | Baseline | This was a 20-item participant reported outcome instrument. It contained 10 subscales, which were combined to yield a total score. The first 11 questions were related specifically to physical functioning subscale, ranging from 0 to 10. The remaining 9 questions assessed pain, fatigue, stiffness, difficulty working, and symptoms of anxiety and depression ranging from 0 to 10. The higher values indicated greater impairment. All 20 were combined to form a total score ranging from 0 to 100, provides an estimation of fibromyalgia impact with higher scores indicating more impairment. The severity categorizations for the FIQ are: less than 40 (mild), 40-60 (moderate), and above 60 (severe). |
| Secondary | FIQ Score at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | This was a 20-item participant reported outcome instrument. It contained 10 subscales, which were combined to yield a total score. The first 11 questions were related specifically to physical functioning subscale, ranging from 0 to 10. The remaining 9 questions assessed pain, fatigue, stiffness, difficulty working, and symptoms of anxiety and depression ranging from 0 to 10. The higher values indicated greater impairment. All 20 were combined to form a total score ranging from 0 to 100, provides an estimation of fibromyalgia impact with higher scores indicating more impairment. The severity categorizations for the FIQ are: less than 40 (mild), 40-60 (moderate), and above 60 (severe). |
| Secondary | Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at the End of Period 1. | End of Period 1 at Week 6 | PGIC: participant rated instrument to measure participant's change in overall status on a 7-point scale; range from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse). |
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants With >=30% and >=50% Pain Reduction Based on Daily Pain Diary. | Visits 2, 6, and 12 | Participant with at least a 30% reduction in mean pain score from baseline (at randomization) to the endpoint at the end of each period (Visits 6 and 12) is considered a 30% responder, for the respective period. Similarly, a subject with at least a 50% reduction in mean pain score from baseline (at randomization) to the endpoint at the end of each period (Visits 6 and 12) is considered a 50% responder, for the respective period. |
| Secondary | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire - Mean Sleep Quality at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire included 5 items: participants report latency (how long it took them to fall asleep), how many hours they slept, the number of times they woke up, the total wake time after sleep onset, and then rate the quality of their sleep (NRS) for the previous night. Subjective rating of quality of sleep during the past night was done by selecting a number between 0 (very poor) and 10 (excellent). Mean sleep quality was calculated as the mean of the last seven days, the potential range of responses was therefore 0-10. |
| Secondary | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire - Mean Subjective Wake After Sleep Onset at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire included, participants report latency (how long it took them to fall asleep), how many hours they slept, the number of times they woke up, the total wake time after sleep onset, and then rate the quality of their sleep (numeric rating scale) for the previous night. Subjective wake after sleep onset was the subjective estimate of the total amount of time the participant was awake after initial sleep onset until final awakening. |
| Secondary | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire - Mean Latency to Sleep Onset at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire included, participants report latency (how long it took them to fall asleep), how many hours they slept, the number of times they woke up, the total wake time after sleep onset, and then rate the quality of their sleep (numeric rating scale) for the previous night. Subjective latency to sleep onset was the subjective estimate of the amount of time to fall asleep after lights out. |
| Secondary | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire - Mean Subjective Total Sleep Time at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire included, participants report latency (how long it took them to fall asleep), how many hours they slept, the number of times they woke up, the total wake time after sleep onset, and then rate the quality of their sleep (numeric rating scale) for the previous night. Subjective total sleep time was the subjective estimate of the total amount of time the participant was asleep after lights out until final awakening. |
| Secondary | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire - Parameter Estimates for Subjective Number of Awakenings Per Night After Sleep Onset at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | Subjective Sleep Questionnaire included, participants report latency (how long it took them to fall asleep), how many hours they slept, the number of times they woke up, the total wake time after sleep onset, and then rate the quality of their sleep (numeric rating scale) for the previous night. Subjective number of awakenings after sleep onset was the subjective estimate of the total number of times the participant awakened during the night until final awakening. |
| Secondary | Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at Baseline. | Baseline | HADS: participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A (anxiety) assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D (depression) assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms. |
| Secondary | HADS at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | HADS: participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A (anxiety) assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D (depression) assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms. |
| Secondary | Mean EuroQoL 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Score at Baseline. | Baseline | EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a single index value characterizing current health status using a 100-point visual analog scale (0=worst, 100=best). EQ-5D summary index is obtained with a formula that weights each level of the dimensions. The index-based score is interpreted along a continuum of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). |
| Secondary | EQ-5D Score at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a single index value characterizing current health status using a 100-point visual analog scale (0=worst, 100=best). EQ-5D summary index is obtained with a formula that weights each level of the dimensions. The index-based score is interpreted along a continuum of 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health). |
| Other | PGIC at the End of Period 2. | End of Period 2 at Week 14 | PGIC: participant rated instrument to measure participant's change in overall status on a 7-point scale; range from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse). Because of the crossover design and PGIC recall period (since starting study medication), the Period 1 PGIC data were felt to provide the clearest comparison across treatments, whereas Period 2 PGIC data were felt to have a more complex interpretation. Thus PGIC at End of Period 2 was separately analyzed from PGIC at End of Period 1. |
| Other | Mean Patient Static Global Assessment (PSGA) Score at Baseline. | Baseline | PSGA was a single-item self-rated instrument that measured the participant's overall status on an 11-point NRS ranging from 0 (very poor) to 10 (very good). |
| Other | Mean PSGA Score at End of Period. | End of each period, at Weeks 6 and 14 | PSGA was a single-item self-rated instrument that measured the participant's overall status on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (very poor) to 10 (very good). |
| Other | Number of Participants With Categorical Scores on the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) at Baseline. | Baseline | C-SSRS assessed whether participant experienced following: completed suicide (1), suicide attempt (2) (response of "Yes" on "actual attempt"), preparatory acts toward imminent suicidal behavior (3) ("Yes" on "preparatory acts or behavior"), suicidal ideation (4) ("Yes" on "wish to be dead", "non-specific active suicidal thoughts", "active suicidal ideation with methods without intent to act or some intent to act, without specific plan or with specific plan and intent), any suicidal behavior or ideation, self-injurious behavior (7) ("Yes" on "Has participant engaged in non-suicidal self-injurious behavior"). |
| Other | Number of Participants With Categorical Scores on the C-SSRS at Post-Baseline. | From Visit 3 to Visit 14 | C-SSRS assessed whether participant experienced following:completed suicide (1), suicide attempt (2) (response of Yes on "actual attempt"), preparatory acts toward imminent suicidal behavior (3) (Yes on "preparatory acts or behavior"), suicidal ideation (4) (Yes on "wish to be dead", "non-specific active suicidal thoughts", "active suicidal ideation with methods without intent to act or some intent to act, without specific plan or with specific plan and intent), any suicidal behavior or ideation, self-injurious behavior (7) (Yes on "Has subject engaged in non-suicidal self-injurious behavior"). Below table indicated one participant (10141023) treated with Pregabalin reported preparatory act. However upon study unblinding it was clarified that preparatory act occurred while the participant was taking placebo. Since preparatory act was reported at first visit of Period 2, by convention statistical summaries classified this under Pregabalin treatment. |
| Other | Work Productivity and Activity Index-Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SHP) Questionnaire at Baseline. | Baseline | WPAI-SHP assessed work productivity and impairment. It was a participant-rated, six-item questionnaire regarding current employment, hours missed and actually worked, and degree to which a specified health problem affected work productivity and regular activities over the past 7 days. Subscale scores included percent work time missed due to the health problem; percent impairment while working due to problem; percent overall work impairment due to problem; and percent activity impairment due to problem. Each subscale score was expressed as an impairment percentage (0-100) where higher numbers indicated greater impairment and less productivity. |
Source ClinicalTrials.govtrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0
Sources 3
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
- ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain
Each source's terms
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
- ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)
ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.
For software
Read this list from software.
Twenty rows a page, as JSON. No key.
GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT01432236/registered