Trial Outcomes & Findings for A Study to Evaluate of Cosmetic Benefit of a Moisturising Cream in People With Blemish Prone Skin (NCT NCT03093181)
NCT ID: NCT03093181
Last Updated: 2020-02-24
Results Overview
A blinded, trained and qualified evaluator conducted instrumental measurements of skin moisturization.Measurement of skin moisturization was performed by the electrical capacitance method with a Corneometer CM 865. The measuring principle was based on changes in the capacitance of the measuring head, functioning as a condensator. Between the conductors of the probe an electrical field was built which allows the dielectricity of the stratum corneum to be measured. Because the dielectricity of the skin varies as a function of its water content.The range of hydration level was 0 (as dry as possible)\~120 AU (Arbitrary Unit)(most moist possible).Higher Corneometer values are indicative of improved skin moisturization.
COMPLETED
NA
157 participants
At Baseline and Day 1
2020-02-24
Participant Flow
All the participants were recruited from one center in Brazil.
Out of 205 screened participants,157 participants were enrolled, and 132 participants were randomized. 25 enrolled subjects were not subsequently randomized. Out of 132 randomized participants,1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control").
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
44
|
44
|
44
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
41
|
42
|
41
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
3
|
2
|
3
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
|
Overall Study
Other (Not specified)
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Overall Study
Adverse Event
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
|
Overall Study
Other (Protocol violation)
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Baseline Characteristics
A Study to Evaluate of Cosmetic Benefit of a Moisturising Cream in People With Blemish Prone Skin
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=45 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=43 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
Total
n=132 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
25.4 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.82 • n=99 Participants
|
25.8 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.05 • n=107 Participants
|
24.8 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.72 • n=206 Participants
|
25.3 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.84 • n=7 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
44 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
45 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
43 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
132 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
|
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
5 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
8 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
|
14 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
42 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
|
27 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
30 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
24 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
81 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: At Baseline and Day 1Population: Intent to treat (ITT, N= 132) population included all participants who were randomized into the study and have at least one post-baseline measurement available.
A blinded, trained and qualified evaluator conducted instrumental measurements of skin moisturization.Measurement of skin moisturization was performed by the electrical capacitance method with a Corneometer CM 865. The measuring principle was based on changes in the capacitance of the measuring head, functioning as a condensator. Between the conductors of the probe an electrical field was built which allows the dielectricity of the stratum corneum to be measured. Because the dielectricity of the skin varies as a function of its water content.The range of hydration level was 0 (as dry as possible)\~120 AU (Arbitrary Unit)(most moist possible).Higher Corneometer values are indicative of improved skin moisturization.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=43 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Corneometer Values at 8 Hours on Day 1
|
6.14 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 6.442
|
2.63 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 5.602
|
3.60 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 7.860
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At Baseline, Day 1, Week 1, 4 and 8Population: ITT (N= 132) population included all participants who were randomized into the study and have at least one post-baseline measurement available.
A blinded, trained and qualified evaluator conducted instrumental measurements of skin moisturisation. Measurement of skin moisturisation was performed by the electrical capacitance method with a Corneometer CM 865. The measuring principle was based on changes in the capacitance of the measuring head, functioning as a condensator. Between the conductors of the probe an electrical field was built which allows the dielectricity of the stratum corneum to be measured. Because the dielectricity of the skin varies as a function of its water content. Higher Corneometer values are indicative of improved skin moisturisation.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Corneometer Values at 1 and 3 Hours on Day 1 and at Week 1, 4 and 8
At 1 hour, Day 1
|
11.52 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 8.264
|
-3.69 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 6.150
|
4.55 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 8.055
|
|
Change From Baseline in Corneometer Values at 1 and 3 Hours on Day 1 and at Week 1, 4 and 8
At 3 hour, Day 1
|
9.64 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 5.986
|
0.68 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 5.029
|
4.33 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 7.913
|
|
Change From Baseline in Corneometer Values at 1 and 3 Hours on Day 1 and at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 1
|
4.39 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 10.549
|
0.06 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 9.024
|
3.31 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 11.027
|
|
Change From Baseline in Corneometer Values at 1 and 3 Hours on Day 1 and at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 4
|
4.33 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 8.935
|
3.16 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 7.028
|
1.04 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 8.124
|
|
Change From Baseline in Corneometer Values at 1 and 3 Hours on Day 1 and at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 8
|
7.54 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 11.994
|
3.32 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 10.059
|
2.51 Arbitrary Corneometer unit
Standard Deviation 12.969
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At Baseline and Week 8Population: ITT (N= 132) population included all participants who were randomized into the study and have at least one post-baseline measurement available.
The baseline and week 8 photographs of all participants were displayed side by side on high resolution, color-calibrated display screen in room with neutral wall colors and standardized lighting and all practical efforts were made to minimize glare. The relative positioning (left and right) of baseline and week 8 photographs were blinded to evaluator and randomized. A technician used randomization schedule to display pair of images to lay evaluator. Lay evaluators judged magnitude of improvement in overall appearance of blemishes using the below criteria: Left=blemishes on left are more obvious than those on the right and Right=blemishes on right are more obvious than those on the left. Layperson ranked both left and right image as follows:1=Better;2=Worse. Odds was calculated from logistic regression including treatment and age stratum effects and exchangeable correlation. Odds=p/(1-p) where p was the probability of event that Week 8 was better than baseline.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Odds for Logistic Regression Analysis on Improvement Rating of Lay Person Assessment of Polarized and Non-polarized Images Week 8 Compared to Baseline
For Polarised Image
|
1.84 Odds
|
1.00 Odds
|
1.04 Odds
|
|
Odds for Logistic Regression Analysis on Improvement Rating of Lay Person Assessment of Polarized and Non-polarized Images Week 8 Compared to Baseline
For Non-polarised Image
|
2.06 Odds
|
1.08 Odds
|
1.02 Odds
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At Baseline and Week 8Population: ITT (N= 132) population included all participants who were randomized into the study and have at least one post-baseline measurement available.
Baseline and Week 8 photographs of all participants were displayed side by side on high resolution, color-calibrated display screen in room with neutral wall colors and standardized lighting with minimized glare. Relative positioning (left and right) of baseline and Week 8 photographs were blinded to evaluator and randomized. Lay evaluators ranked magnitude of improvement in overall appearance of blemishes using below criteria: Left=blemishes on left are more obvious than those on right; Right=blemishes on right are more obvious than those on left. Lay evaluator ranking for each image pair was converted into a numerical score based on whether Baseline or Week 8 image was ranked better:0=Baseline image was better than Week 8 image,1=Week 8 image was better than Baseline image. Minimum score 0 corresponded to all baseline images being better than Week 8 images. Maximum score 1 corresponded to all Week 8 images being better than baseline images. Higher scores indicated better results.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
ANOVA Analysis on Improvement Rating of Lay Person Assessment of Polarized and Non-polarized Images Week 8 Compared to Baseline
For Polarised Image
|
0.65 Score on scale
Standard Error 0.048
|
0.50 Score on scale
Standard Error 0.047
|
0.51 Score on scale
Standard Error 0.047
|
|
ANOVA Analysis on Improvement Rating of Lay Person Assessment of Polarized and Non-polarized Images Week 8 Compared to Baseline
For Non-polarised Image
|
0.67 Score on scale
Standard Error 0.047
|
0.52 Score on scale
Standard Error 0.046
|
0.51 Score on scale
Standard Error 0.047
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At Baseline, Week 1, 4 and 8Population: ITT (N= 132) population included all participants who were randomized into the study and have at least one post-baseline measurement available.
A treatment blind, trained and qualified evaluator counted the total number of facial blemishes on the forehead, cheeks and chin of the participants.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Evaluator's Assessment of Total Blemish Count at Week 1, 4, and 8
At Week 1
|
-0.70 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 4.338
|
-1.05 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 3.331
|
-0.93 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 3.460
|
|
Change From Baseline in Evaluator's Assessment of Total Blemish Count at Week 1, 4, and 8
At Week 4
|
-3.86 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 3.143
|
-2.76 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 4.154
|
-4.00 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 4.461
|
|
Change From Baseline in Evaluator's Assessment of Total Blemish Count at Week 1, 4, and 8
At Week 8
|
-5.68 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 3.889
|
-3.79 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 3.626
|
-5.12 Total Blemish Count
Standard Deviation 4.507
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At Baseline, Week 1, 4 and 8Population: ITT (N= 132) population included all participants who were randomized into the study and have at least one post-baseline measurement available.
A treatment blinded, trained and qualified evaluator conducted instrumental measurements of skin sebum levels. Measurement of skin sebum levels was performed by with a Sebumeter SM 815. The measurement principle of the SM 815 is based on grease spot photometry. The translucent tape of the device is brought into contact with skin and becomes increasingly transparent in response to surface oil. The tape is inserted into the aperture of the device and its transparency measured by light transmission, with increased transmission signifying increased oiliness. The software outputs mass sebum levels as a function of area. Sebumeter measurements were taken in triplicate at the central forehead (above the eyebrows) with the participant lying horizontally, on their back.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Sebumeter Values at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 1
|
-54.98 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 133.157
|
-70.50 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 131.654
|
-52.19 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 116.797
|
|
Change From Baseline in Sebumeter Values at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 4
|
-49.57 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 128.821
|
-67.52 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 139.278
|
-21.67 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 114.170
|
|
Change From Baseline in Sebumeter Values at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 8
|
-86.49 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 118.708
|
-87.04 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 114.207
|
-65.85 Micrograms (μg)/square centimeter (cm^2)
Standard Deviation 111.936
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: At Baseline, Week 1, 4 and 8Population: ITT (N= 132) population included all participants who were randomized into the study and have at least one post-baseline measurement available.
The forehead of each participant was thoroughly cleansed by the investigator or designee using cotton pads saturated with 70% Isopropyl Alcohol and, after 5 minutes, the central area of the forehead above the eyebrows was measured in triplicate with a Sebumeter. The same area was measured in triplicate 90 minutes after cleansing. The sebum excretion rate was calculated by the difference in 90th minutes and 5th minute Sebumeter values.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=44 Participants
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Sebum Excretion Rate at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 1
|
20.36 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 135.959
|
38.72 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 149.325
|
66.73 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 161.570
|
|
Change From Baseline in Sebum Excretion Rate at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 4
|
30.49 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 153.074
|
44.97 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 125.342
|
53.17 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 137.181
|
|
Change From Baseline in Sebum Excretion Rate at Week 1, 4 and 8
At Week 8
|
38.04 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 162.934
|
32.91 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 148.784
|
67.10 μg/cm^2
Standard Deviation 112.039
|
Adverse Events
Test Product Regimen
No Treatment Regimen
Positive Control Regimen
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Test Product Regimen
n=44 participants at risk
Participants randomized to test product regimen used the standard cleanser and test product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the test product cream immediately after cleansing.
|
No Treatment Regimen
n=45 participants at risk
Participants randomized to the no treatment regimen used the standard cleanser (only) twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours.
|
Positive Control Regimen
n=43 participants at risk
Participants randomized to positive control regimen used the positive cleanser and positive control product twice a day (morning and night). Morning and evening applications were separated by at least 8 hours. Participants applied the positive control cream immediately after cleansing.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Nervous system disorders
HEADACHE
|
2.3%
1/44 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
2.2%
1/45 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
7.0%
3/43 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
|
Nervous system disorders
HYPERAESTHESIA
|
0.00%
0/44 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
0.00%
0/45 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
2.3%
1/43 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
ABDOMINAL PAIN UPPER
|
0.00%
0/44 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
0.00%
0/45 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
2.3%
1/43 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
NAUSEA
|
0.00%
0/44 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
0.00%
0/45 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
2.3%
1/43 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
NASAL DISCOMFORT
|
0.00%
0/44 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
0.00%
0/45 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
2.3%
1/43 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
DERMATITIS CONTACT
|
0.00%
0/44 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
2.2%
1/45 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
0.00%
0/43 • Approximately 57 days
1 participant was misallocated to treatment (received "no treatment" instead of "positive control"). This means 45 participants were in safety population for "no treatment".However, per convention, ITT population is defined based on intended treatment allocation.While 1 subject incorrectly received "no treatment",they were initially allocated to "positive control". Therefore, this participant was included in ITT population for "positive control" but safety population for "no treatment".
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee GSK agreements may vary with individual investigators, but will not prohibit any investigator from publishing. GSK supports the publication of results from all centers of a multi-center trial but requests that reports based on single-site data not precede the primary publication of the entire clinical trial.
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: OTHER