Trial Outcomes & Findings for A Study of Tirbanibulin on the Wellbeing of Participants With Actinic Keratoses (NCT NCT05741294)

NCT ID: NCT05741294

Last Updated: 2025-02-20

Results Overview

TSQM-9 was a 9-item clinically validated psychometric instrument developed from the TSQM 1.4. TSQM-9 measures participant satisfaction with the medication in 3 domains: Effectiveness, convenience, and global satisfaction. The scores were computed by adding items for each domain, i.e., 1 to 3 for effectiveness, 4 to 6 for convenience, and 7 to 9 for global satisfaction. The lowest possible score (1 for each item and 3 for all 3 subscales) was subtracted from the composite score and divided by the greatest possible score range. The greatest range was (7-1) x 3 items = 18 for effectiveness and convenience, and (5-1) x 3 items = 12 for global satisfaction. This provided a transformed score between 0 and 1 that was then multiplied by 100. TSQM-9 domain scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction for that domain. A positive change from baseline indicates improvement.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

PHASE4

Target enrollment

334 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

At Day 57

Results posted on

2025-02-20

Participant Flow

This study was conducted at 37 sites in Europe (7 in Italy and 30 in Spain) from 20 January 2023 to 19 January 2024.

A total of 340 participants were screened, of which 334 participants enrolled in this study.

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 milligrams (mg) once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Overall Study
STARTED
334
Overall Study
Evaluable Population
328
Overall Study
Line-field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography (LC-OCT) Population
12
Overall Study
Safety Population
334
Overall Study
COMPLETED
327
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
7

Reasons for withdrawal

Reasons for withdrawal
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 milligrams (mg) once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
3
Overall Study
Protocol deviation
3
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
1

Baseline Characteristics

A Study of Tirbanibulin on the Wellbeing of Participants With Actinic Keratoses

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=334 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Age, Continuous
74.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.51 • n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
56 Participants
n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
278 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: Caucasian
334 Participants
n=99 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment.

TSQM-9 was a 9-item clinically validated psychometric instrument developed from the TSQM 1.4. TSQM-9 measures participant satisfaction with the medication in 3 domains: Effectiveness, convenience, and global satisfaction. The scores were computed by adding items for each domain, i.e., 1 to 3 for effectiveness, 4 to 6 for convenience, and 7 to 9 for global satisfaction. The lowest possible score (1 for each item and 3 for all 3 subscales) was subtracted from the composite score and divided by the greatest possible score range. The greatest range was (7-1) x 3 items = 18 for effectiveness and convenience, and (5-1) x 3 items = 12 for global satisfaction. This provided a transformed score between 0 and 1 that was then multiplied by 100. TSQM-9 domain scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction for that domain. A positive change from baseline indicates improvement.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version 9 (TSQM-9) Total Score of Each Components at Day 57
Effectiveness Total Score Value
73.64 score on a scale
Interval 71.28 to 76.01
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version 9 (TSQM-9) Total Score of Each Components at Day 57
Convenience Total Score Value
82.81 score on a scale
Interval 81.28 to 84.34
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version 9 (TSQM-9) Total Score of Each Components at Day 57
Global Satisfaction Total Score Value
76.94 score on a scale
Interval 74.89 to 78.99

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment.

Skindex-16 was used for participants to rate skin conditions that have occurred within the previous week. The Skindex-16 consisted of 16 items that were divided into three sub-scores: Symptoms (four items, range 0-24), Emotions (seven items, range 0-42), and Functioning (five items, range 0-30). Participant were asked to respond on how much their skin condition bothered them in the week prior to administration of the Skindex-16. Each item was scored on a scale ranged from 0 (never bothered) to 6 (always bothered), where higher score indicated continued/more botheration. Item scores are transformed to 0 to 100 scale, and domain scores are calculated as the average of the item scores comprising the domain. Net positive changes in respective subscale scoring indicates improvement in that particular quality of life assessment (i.e., Symptoms, Emotions, Functioning), while net negative changes in scoring indicates decrease in that particular quality of life assessment.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Change From Baseline in Skindex-16 Questionnaire Symptoms Sub-Score at Day 57
Emotions Sub-Score: Change at Day 57
-11.56 score on a scale
Interval -13.56 to -9.55
Change From Baseline in Skindex-16 Questionnaire Symptoms Sub-Score at Day 57
Functioning Sub-Score: Change at Day 57
-2.49 score on a scale
Interval -3.98 to -1.0
Change From Baseline in Skindex-16 Questionnaire Symptoms Sub-Score at Day 57
Symptoms Sub-Score: Change at Day 57
-10.49 score on a scale
Interval -12.55 to -8.44

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 8

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment. Here, "Overall number of Participants" signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome.

Likert scale was an instrument used to measure the individual's degree of agreement and disagreement with a variety of statements about some attitude, options, or their feelings. In this study, the product's organoleptic properties are evaluated with Likert scale. The questionnaire was built with questions related to the product's characteristics namely appearance, color, convenience, texture, smell, and the feelings experienced during drug application. The Likert scale offers 7 possible answers, from "totally agree",' In agreement", "Somewhat agree", "Neither agree nor disagree", "Something in disagreement", "In disagreement" and "totally in disagreement".

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=327 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is nice: In agreement
40.37 Percentage of participants
Interval 31.92 to 49.21
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is nice: Totally in disagreement
0 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is oily: Somewhat agree
9.48 Percentage of participants
Interval 4.61 to 16.1
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is creamy: Somewhat agree
7.03 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.92 to 13.0
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is creamy: In disagreement
1.83 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.08 to 5.68
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is creamy: Totally in disagreement
0.92 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.11
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The skin was greasy after applying the treatment: In agreement
25.08 Percentage of participants
Interval 17.2 to 34.03
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The skin was greasy after applying the treatment: Somewhat agree
14.68 Percentage of participants
Interval 8.54 to 22.34
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The skin was greasy after applying the treatment: Something in disagreement
3.98 Percentage of participants
Interval 1.06 to 8.89
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The skin was greasy after applying the treatment: In disagreement
17.13 Percentage of participants
Interval 10.5 to 25.17
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The smell of the product is pleasant: Neither agree nor disagree
42.51 Percentage of participants
Interval 33.09 to 52.25
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product feels pleasant on the skin: Totally agree
27.22 Percentage of participants
Interval 19.07 to 36.35
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product feels pleasant on the skin: Neither agree nor disagree
21.10 Percentage of participants
Interval 13.8 to 29.66
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product feels pleasant on the skin: Something in disagreement
1.83 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.08 to 5.68
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product feels pleasant on the skin: In disagreement
5.50 Percentage of participants
Interval 1.95 to 10.99
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The feel of the product on the skin is refreshing: Totally agree
18.35 Percentage of participants
Interval 11.5 to 26.56
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The feel of the product on the skin is refreshing: Something in disagreement
5.81 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.13 to 11.4
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The feel of the product on the skin is refreshing: In disagreement
10.09 Percentage of participants
Interval 5.06 to 16.86
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The feel of the product on the skin is refreshing: Totally in disagreement
10.70 Percentage of participants
Interval 5.5 to 17.6
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product offers a protective feeling: Totally agree
20.80 Percentage of participants
Interval 13.54 to 29.32
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product offers a protective feeling: In agreement
25.38 Percentage of participants
Interval 17.47 to 34.36
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product offers a protective feeling: Somewhat agree
9.48 Percentage of participants
Interval 4.61 to 16.1
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product offers a protective feeling: Neither agree nor disagree
30.28 Percentage of participants
Interval 21.79 to 39.61
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product offers a protective feeling: In disagreement
5.81 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.13 to 11.4
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product offers a protective feeling: Totally in disagreement
5.20 Percentage of participants
Interval 1.76 to 10.58
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product is easy to apply: Totally agree
66.36 Percentage of participants
Interval 56.85 to 75.17
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product is easy to apply: Neither agree nor disagree
0.92 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.11
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product can be distributed evenly and easily: Totally agree
64.53 Percentage of participants
Interval 55.79 to 72.66
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product can be distributed evenly and easily: In agreement
29.05 Percentage of participants
Interval 21.48 to 37.5
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product can be distributed evenly and easily: Somewhat agree
4.28 Percentage of participants
Interval 1.54 to 8.93
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product can be distributed evenly and easily: Neither agree nor disagree
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.36
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product can be distributed evenly and easily: In disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.36
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product can be distributed evenly and easily: Totally in disagreement
0 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
Product remains on application area, without spreading to neighboring areas: Totally agree
57.19 Percentage of participants
Interval 47.44 to 66.62
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
Product remains on application area, without spreading to neighboring areas: In agreement
29.97 Percentage of participants
Interval 21.52 to 39.29
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
Product remains on application area, without spreading to neighboring areas: Neither agree/ disagree
2.75 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.44 to 7.11
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product packaging is practical: Something in disagreement
2.14 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.19 to 6.17
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product packaging is practical: In disagreement
3.36 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.74 to 8.01
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product packaging is practical: Totally in disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.53
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The general appearance of the product is good: Totally agree
52.60 Percentage of participants
Interval 43.75 to 61.34
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The general appearance of the product is good: In agreement
38.23 Percentage of participants
Interval 29.91 to 47.04
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The general appearance of the product is good: Somewhat agree
3.06 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.85 to 7.22
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The general appearance of the product is good: Neither agree nor disagree
5.20 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.11 to 10.15
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The general appearance of the product is good: Something in disagreement
0.31 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 2.76
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The general appearance of the product is good: In disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.36
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The general appearance of the product is good: Totally in disagreement
0 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The overall assessment of the product is very satisfactory: Totally agree
36.70 Percentage of participants
Interval 27.64 to 46.33
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The overall assessment of the product is very satisfactory: In agreement
38.53 Percentage of participants
Interval 29.35 to 48.21
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The overall assessment of the product is very satisfactory: Somewhat agree
8.26 Percentage of participants
Interval 3.75 to 14.57
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The overall assessment of the product is very satisfactory: Neither agree nor disagree
10.40 Percentage of participants
Interval 5.28 to 17.23
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The overall assessment of the product is very satisfactory: Something in disagreement
1.53 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 5.18
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The overall assessment of the product is very satisfactory: In disagreement
3.36 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.74 to 8.01
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The overall assessment of the product is very satisfactory: Totally in disagreement
1.22 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.66
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
I would recommend the product: Totally agree
34.86 Percentage of participants
Interval 25.95 to 44.43
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
I would recommend the product: In agreement
33.64 Percentage of participants
Interval 24.83 to 43.15
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
I would recommend the product: Somewhat agree
5.81 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.13 to 11.4
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
I would recommend the product: Neither agree nor disagree
18.04 Percentage of participants
Interval 11.25 to 26.22
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
I would recommend the product: Something in disagreement
1.22 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.66
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
I would recommend the product: In disagreement
3.06 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.59 to 7.56
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
I would recommend the product: Totally in disagreement
3.36 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.74 to 8.01
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The color of the product is nice: Totally agree
36.70 Percentage of participants
Interval 29.37 to 44.55
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The color of the product is nice: In agreement
36.09 Percentage of participants
Interval 28.8 to 43.92
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The color of the product is nice: Somewhat agree
5.81 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.9 to 10.47
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The color of the product is nice: Neither agree nor disagree
20.80 Percentage of participants
Interval 14.96 to 27.79
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The color of the product is nice: Something in disagreement
0 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The color of the product is nice: In disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.02 to 3.17
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The color of the product is nice: Totally in disagreement
0 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is nice: Totally agree
48.93 Percentage of participants
Interval 40.14 to 57.76
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is nice: Somewhat agree
5.20 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.11 to 10.15
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is nice: Neither agree nor disagree
4.28 Percentage of participants
Interval 1.54 to 8.93
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is nice: Something in disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.36
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is nice: In disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.36
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is watery: Totally agree
12.84 Percentage of participants
Interval 7.12 to 20.18
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is watery: In agreement
18.65 Percentage of participants
Interval 11.76 to 26.91
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is watery: Somewhat agree
9.79 Percentage of participants
Interval 4.83 to 16.48
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is watery: Neither agree nor disagree
15.90 Percentage of participants
Interval 9.52 to 23.76
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is watery: Something in disagreement
8.26 Percentage of participants
Interval 3.75 to 14.57
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is watery: In disagreement
19.88 Percentage of participants
Interval 12.77 to 28.29
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is watery: Totally in disagreement
14.68 Percentage of participants
Interval 8.54 to 22.34
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is oily: Totally agree
11.31 Percentage of participants
Interval 5.96 to 18.35
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is oily: In agreement
15.90 Percentage of participants
Interval 9.52 to 23.76
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is oily: Neither agree nor disagree
16.82 Percentage of participants
Interval 10.26 to 24.82
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is oily: Something in disagreement
6.73 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.72 to 12.61
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is oily: In disagreement
20.49 Percentage of participants
Interval 13.28 to 28.97
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is oily: Totally in disagreement
19.27 Percentage of participants
Interval 12.26 to 27.6
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is creamy: Totally agree
40.06 Percentage of participants
Interval 30.78 to 49.77
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is creamy: In agreement
41.28 Percentage of participants
Interval 31.93 to 51.01
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is creamy: Neither agree nor disagree
7.34 Percentage of participants
Interval 3.13 to 13.4
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The texture of the product is creamy: Something in disagreement
1.53 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 5.18
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The skin was greasy after applying the treatment: Totally agree
12.84 Percentage of participants
Interval 7.12 to 20.18
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The skin was greasy after applying the treatment: Neither agree nor disagree
8.56 Percentage of participants
Interval 3.96 to 14.95
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The skin was greasy after applying the treatment: Totally in disagreement
17.74 Percentage of participants
Interval 11.0 to 25.87
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The smell of the product is pleasant: Totally agree
23.85 Percentage of participants
Interval 16.14 to 32.7
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The smell of the product is pleasant: In agreement
23.55 Percentage of participants
Interval 15.88 to 32.36
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The smell of the product is pleasant: Somewhat agree
7.65 Percentage of participants
Interval 3.33 to 13.79
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The smell of the product is pleasant: Something in disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.53
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The smell of the product is pleasant: In disagreement
0.92 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.11
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The smell of the product is pleasant: Totally in disagreement
0.92 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.11
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product feels pleasant on the skin: In agreement
30.28 Percentage of participants
Interval 21.79 to 39.61
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product feels pleasant on the skin: Somewhat agree
10.70 Percentage of participants
Interval 5.5 to 17.6
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product feels pleasant on the skin: Totally in disagreement
3.36 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.74 to 8.01
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The feel of the product on the skin is refreshing: In agreement
20.80 Percentage of participants
Interval 13.54 to 29.32
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The feel of the product on the skin is refreshing: Somewhat agree
11.31 Percentage of participants
Interval 5.96 to 18.35
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The feel of the product on the skin is refreshing: Neither agree nor disagree
22.94 Percentage of participants
Interval 15.36 to 31.69
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product offers a protective feeling: Something in disagreement
3.06 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.59 to 7.56
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product is easy to apply: In agreement
27.22 Percentage of participants
Interval 19.07 to 36.35
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product is easy to apply: Somewhat agree
3.67 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.89 to 8.45
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product is easy to apply: Something in disagreement
0.92 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.11
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product is easy to apply: In disagreement
0.31 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 2.9
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product is easy to apply: Totally in disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.53
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product can be distributed evenly and easily: Something in disagreement
0.92 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.91
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
Product remains on application area, without spreading to neighboring areas: Somewhat agree
6.12 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.33 to 11.81
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
Product remains on application area without spreading to neighboring areas:Something in disagreement
2.14 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.19 to 6.17
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
Product remains on application area, without spreading to neighboring areas: In disagreement
0.61 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 3.53
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
Product remains on application area, without spreading to neighboring areas: Totally in disagreement
1.22 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 4.66
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product packaging is practical: Totally agree
50.76 Percentage of participants
Interval 41.06 to 60.43
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product packaging is practical: In agreement
33.94 Percentage of participants
Interval 25.11 to 43.47
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product packaging is practical: Somewhat agree
6.12 Percentage of participants
Interval 2.33 to 11.81
Percentage of Participants With Organoleptic Properties of Tirbanibulin Assessed on a Likert Scale at Day 8
The product packaging is practical: Neither agree nor disagree
3.06 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.59 to 7.56

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment.

TSQM 1.4 was a 14-item robust instrument that psychometrically evaluates the treatment satisfaction of the administered medication. The instrument is designed with 4 scales consisting of 14 questions. These 14 questions were derived from an original set of 55 questions extracted from exhaustive literature review and treatment groups through multistep iterative process. The 4 scales focused on effectiveness (questions: 1-3), side effects (questions: 4-8), convenience (questions: 9-11), global satisfaction (questions:12-14). Global Satisfaction- Question 12 scored as 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (extremely confident); question 13 scored as 1 (not at all certain) to 5 (extremely certain); and question 14 scored as 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). The scores of the domain were added together and an algorithm was used to create a score of 0 to 100. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version 1.4 (TSQM 1.4) Components Scores at Day 57
Side Effects score value at Day 57
97.47 score on a scale
Interval 96.59 to 98.34
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version 1.4 (TSQM 1.4) Components Scores at Day 57
Global satisfaction score value at Day 57
76.94 score on a scale
Interval 74.89 to 78.99
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version 1.4 (TSQM 1.4) Components Scores at Day 57
Effectiveness score value at Day 57
73.64 score on a scale
Interval 71.28 to 76.01
Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication Version 1.4 (TSQM 1.4) Components Scores at Day 57
Convenience score value at Day 57
82.81 score on a scale
Interval 81.28 to 84.34

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment. Here, "number analyzed" signifies participants who were evaluable at specific category.

An expert panel on consensus developed a questionnaire directed to patients consisting of 9 simple items using a qualitative modified delphi method. Expert panel agreed to ask 9 specific items; 1: Overall appearance of the skin (much worse to much improved); 2: Treatment satisfaction of skin looks (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 3: Treatment satisfaction of skin texture (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 4: Duration of skin reactions (much shorter to much longer); 5: rate the severity of skin reactions (much better to much worse); 6: impact on your daily activities due to skin reactions (much better to much worse); 7: rate the convenience/ease of use (much better to much worse); 8: rate your overall satisfaction (much better to much worse); 9: You need to be retreated for AK, how likely are you to consider tirbanibulin (very unlikely to very likely).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: Much worse
0.31 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.0 to 2.68
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: Somewhat worse
0.31 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.0 to 2.68
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: No change
6.92 Percentage of patients
Interval 3.66 to 11.94
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: Somewhat improved
24.84 Percentage of patients
Interval 18.45 to 32.27
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: Much improved
67.61 Percentage of patients
Interval 59.78 to 74.72
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Dissatisfied
2.83 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.71 to 6.97
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Somewhat Satisfied
7.23 Percentage of patients
Interval 3.43 to 12.86
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Satisfied
25.79 Percentage of patients
Interval 18.47 to 34.14
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Extremely Dissatisfied
0 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Very Dissatisfied
1.25 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.05 to 4.51
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Dissatisfied
2.80 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.7 to 6.91
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Very Satisfied
27.73 Percentage of patients
Interval 20.23 to 36.17
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Extremely Satisfied
30.22 Percentage of patients
Interval 22.46 to 38.81
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Much shorter
44.62 Percentage of patients
Interval 34.53 to 55.09
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Somewhat shorter
23.66 Percentage of patients
Interval 15.73 to 33.4
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Somewhat longer
9.14 Percentage of patients
Interval 4.42 to 16.67
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Much longer
3.76 Percentage of patients
Interval 1.11 to 9.6
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Much better
51.34 Percentage of patients
Interval 40.98 to 61.6
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Somewhat better
21.93 Percentage of patients
Interval 14.3 to 31.47
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Same
16.58 Percentage of patients
Interval 9.97 to 25.48
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Impact on your daily activities due to skin reactions: Somewhat worse
3.70 Percentage of patients
Interval 1.09 to 9.46
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Much better
57.97 Percentage of patients
Interval 48.02 to 67.42
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Somewhat better
19.81 Percentage of patients
Interval 12.86 to 28.63
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Same
19.81 Percentage of patients
Interval 12.86 to 28.63
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Somewhat worse
1.93 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.34 to 6.51
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Much worse
0.48 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.0 to 4.08
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Much better
60.29 Percentage of patients
Interval 50.4 to 69.54
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Somewhat better
21.53 Percentage of patients
Interval 14.32 to 30.49
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Same
13.40 Percentage of patients
Interval 7.77 to 21.28
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Somewhat worse
3.83 Percentage of patients
Interval 1.24 to 9.26
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Much worse
0.96 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.04 to 4.89
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
You need to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Very unlikely
3.66 Percentage of patients
Interval 1.49 to 7.67
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
You need to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Somewhat unlikely
2.44 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.78 to 5.98
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
You need to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Neutral
7.62 Percentage of patients
Interval 4.21 to 12.72
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
You need to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Somewhat likely
18.60 Percentage of patients
Interval 13.08 to 25.37
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Somewhat Satisfied
7.17 Percentage of patients
Interval 3.4 to 12.75
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Extremely Dissatisfied
0 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Very Dissatisfied
0.63 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.0 to 3.45
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Very Satisfied
30.19 Percentage of patients
Interval 22.4 to 38.82
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Extremely Satisfied
33.33 Percentage of patients
Interval 25.26 to 42.12
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Satisfied
30.84 Percentage of patients
Interval 23.03 to 39.47
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Same
18.82 Percentage of patients
Interval 11.74 to 28.04
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Somewhat worse
8.02 Percentage of patients
Interval 3.68 to 15.24
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Much worse
2.14 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.37 to 7.18
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Impact on your daily activities due to skin reactions: Much better
49.74 Percentage of patients
Interval 39.48 to 60.0
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Impact on your daily activities due to skin reactions: Somewhat better
13.76 Percentage of patients
Interval 7.81 to 22.16
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Impact on your daily activities due to skin reactions: Same
31.75 Percentage of patients
Interval 22.79 to 41.94
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
Impact on your daily activities due to skin reactions: Much worse
1.06 Percentage of patients
Interval 0.04 to 5.39
Percentage of Patients Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 9) at Day 57
You need to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Very likely
67.68 Percentage of patients
Interval 59.98 to 74.69

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment. Here, "Overall number of Participants" signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome and "number analyzed" signifies participants who were evaluable at specific category.

An expert panel on consensus developed a questionnaire directed to physicians consisting of 10 simple items using a qualitative modified delphi method. Expert panel agreed to ask 10 specific items-1: Overall appearance of the skin (much worse to much improved); 2: Treatment satisfaction of skin looks (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 3: Treatment satisfaction of skin texture (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 4: Duration of skin reactions (much shorter to much longer); 5: rate the severity of skin reactions (much better to much worse); 6: impact on patient's daily activities due to skin reactions (much better to much worse); 7: rate the convenience/ease of use (much better to much worse); 8: rate your overall satisfaction (much better to much worse); 9: patient needs to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin (very unlikely to very likely);10: severity of skin photodamage in the original AK treated area (absent to severe).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=326 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Same
11.01 Percentage of physician
Interval 6.14 to 18.11
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: Somewhat worse
1.23 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.21 to 4.19
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: No change
1.23 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.21 to 4.19
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: Somewhat improved
21.78 Percentage of physician
Interval 15.81 to 28.87
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin: Much improved
74.54 Percentage of physician
Interval 67.17 to 80.93
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Very Dissatisfied
0.31 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 2.93
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Dissatisfied
0.31 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 2.93
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Satisfied
25.31 Percentage of physician
Interval 17.37 to 34.33
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Very Satisfied
31.48 Percentage of physician
Interval 22.84 to 40.93
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Extremely Satisfied
35.49 Percentage of physician
Interval 26.49 to 45.13
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Very Dissatisfied
0.31 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 2.92
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Somewhat Satisfied
6.77 Percentage of physician
Interval 2.74 to 12.68
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Very Satisfied
32.92 Percentage of physician
Interval 24.16 to 42.43
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Much shorter
60.09 Percentage of physician
Interval 50.51 to 69.08
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Same
8.52 Percentage of physician
Interval 4.29 to 15.14
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Somewhat better
22.07 Percentage of physician
Interval 14.96 to 30.8
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Same
9.01 Percentage of physician
Interval 4.63 to 15.76
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Somewhat worse
3.60 Percentage of physician
Interval 1.16 to 8.74
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Much worse
0.45 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 3.81
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Impact on patient's daily activities due to skin reactions: Much better
59.81 Percentage of physician
Interval 50.04 to 69.0
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Impact on patient's daily activities due to skin reactions: Somewhat better
19.63 Percentage of physician
Interval 12.81 to 28.27
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Impact on patient's daily activities due to skin reactions: Same
19.63 Percentage of physician
Interval 12.81 to 28.27
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Impact on patient's daily activities due to skin reactions: Much worse
0.47 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 3.95
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Much better
65.78 Percentage of physician
Interval 57.55 to 73.16
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Somewhat better
25.33 Percentage of physician
Interval 18.82 to 33.17
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Same
5.33 Percentage of physician
Interval 2.66 to 10.42
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Somewhat worse
3.56 Percentage of physician
Interval 1.52 to 8.1
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Much better
50.66 Percentage of physician
Interval 41.25 to 60.03
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Somewhat better
37.00 Percentage of physician
Interval 28.3 to 46.45
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Somewhat worse
0.88 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.03 to 4.52
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate your overall satisfaction: Much worse
0.44 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 3.73
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Patient needs to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Very unlikely
3.68 Percentage of physician
Interval 1.5 to 7.71
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Patient needs to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Somewhat likely
23.01 Percentage of physician
Interval 16.89 to 30.2
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Patient needs to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Very likely
64.11 Percentage of physician
Interval 56.26 to 71.39
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Severity of skin photodamage in the original AK treated area: Absent
24.85 Percentage of physician
Interval 19.38 to 31.26
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Overall appearance of the skin:Much worse
1.23 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.21 to 4.19
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Extremely Dissatisfied
0.31 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 2.93
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin looks: Somewhat Satisfied
6.79 Percentage of physician
Interval 2.75 to 12.72
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Extremely Dissatisfied
0.31 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 2.92
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Dissatisfied
0.92 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 4.14
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Satisfied
27.69 Percentage of physician
Interval 19.47 to 36.89
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Treatment satisfaction of skin texture: Extremely Satisfied
31.08 Percentage of physician
Interval 22.49 to 40.49
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Somewhat shorter
27.35 Percentage of physician
Interval 19.54 to 36.48
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Somewhat longer
3.14 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.92 to 8.06
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Duration of skin reactions: Much longer
0.90 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.03 to 4.6
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the severity of skin reactions: Much better
64.86 Percentage of physician
Interval 55.36 to 73.15
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Impact on patient's daily activities due to skin reactions: Somewhat worse
0.47 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 3.95
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Rate the convenience/ease of use: Much worse
0 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Patient needs to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Somewhat unlikely
1.53 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.34 to 4.66
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Patient needs to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin: Neutral
7.67 Percentage of physician
Interval 4.24 to 12.79
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Severity of skin photodamage in the original AK treated area: Mild
46.63 Percentage of physician
Interval 39.85 to 53.53
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Severity of skin photodamage in the original AK treated area: Moderate
27.61 Percentage of physician
Interval 21.89 to 34.17
Percentage of Physician Who Answered Expert Panel Questionnaire (EPQ) (Question 1 to Question 10) at Day 57
Severity of skin photodamage in the original AK treated area: Severe
0.92 Percentage of physician
Interval 0.24 to 3.44

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment.

Complete clearance of all AK lesions within the application area, is defined as a reduction from baseline in the number of lesions = 100% at Day 57. Percentage of participants with complete clearance with a reduction of 100% (i.e., clearance percentage = 100% from Baseline) in the number of lesions within the application area were reported.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percentage of Participants With Complete (100%) Clearance of All Lesions Within the Application Area at Day 57
54.27 Percentage of participants
Interval 48.71 to 59.75

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment.

Participants with partial clearance were patients with a reduction of \>=75% (i.e., clearance percentage \<=-75% from Baseline) to \<100% in the number of lesions within the application area at final visit.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percentage of Participants With Partial Clearance (Reduction of at Least >=75% to <100%) of All Lesions Within the Application Area at Day 57
22.56 Percentage of participants
Interval 18.15 to 27.47

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: At Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment.

Percent change from baseline in number of old and new AK lesions at Day 57 was reported. Number of lesions at Day 57 was calculated considering both old and new lesions, as: N lesions at Baseline - N lesions at Day 57/ N lesions at Baseline \* 100%.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percent Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Old and New AK Lesions at Day 57
-82.22 Percent change
Standard Deviation 26.367

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline (Day 0) and Day 57

Population: Evaluable population consisted of FAS participants who completed the 57 days of observation and have the TSQM-9 assessment.

The lesions in the identified treatment area will be classified based on Olsen characterization. Classification of AK lesions according to Olsen grade of baseline lesions: Olsen Grade I: Early AK appear as single or few, differently sized, rough, blurred, less visible than palpable, red, rough spots or very flat, non-edged plaques which reach into the reddish color; Olsen grade II: describes advanced AK as clearly visible and palpable, flat, and irregularly raised, with sharp or blurred boundaries, red, rough keratinized surface. If the surface is more strongly keratinized, the AK can also be white, yellow, or light brown. After scratching effects, a black or blue-black shade may appear; Olsen grade III: denotes "late" AK that have existed for a longer period of time and are firmly anchored on the lower surface, with an irregular, humpy surface, also wart-like and of different colors (white, brown, black).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=328 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percentage of Participants by Olsen Characterization at Baseline and Day 57
Olsen Grade I: Baseline
62.80 Percentage of participants
Interval 54.95 to 70.15
Percentage of Participants by Olsen Characterization at Baseline and Day 57
Olsen Grade I: Day 57
39.33 Percentage of participants
Interval 30.95 to 48.15
Percentage of Participants by Olsen Characterization at Baseline and Day 57
Olsen Grade II: Baseline
8.84 Percentage of participants
Interval 5.12 to 14.19
Percentage of Participants by Olsen Characterization at Baseline and Day 57
Olsen Grade III: Baseline
0.0 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 0.0
Percentage of Participants by Olsen Characterization at Baseline and Day 57
Olsen Grade III: Day 57
0.30 Percentage of participants
Interval 0.0 to 2.75
Percentage of Participants by Olsen Characterization at Baseline and Day 57
Olsen Grade II: Day 57
3.66 Percentage of participants
Interval 1.18 to 8.06

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Baseline, Day 8, Day 15, Day 29, and Day 57

Population: LC-OCT population consisted of FAS participants who performed at least one valid LC-OCT assessment.

LC-OCT was a novel non-invasive imaging technique that enables in vivo visualization of the skin. It has been used for diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of skin disorders, including actinic keratosis. The use of LC-OCT in AK treatment progression allows for lesion classification based on histological features without the need for a biopsy. The histopathology of the skin was evaluated based on the estimated atypia score at cellular level of the LC-OCT images of clinical and subclinical lesions. Percentage of participants who performed LC-OCT for clinical and subclinical lesions assessment at each timepoint were reported.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=12 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Percentage of Participants Who Performed Line-field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography (LC-OCT) for Clinical and Sub Clinical Lesions Assessment at Each Timepoint
At Baseline
100.00 Percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Performed Line-field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography (LC-OCT) for Clinical and Sub Clinical Lesions Assessment at Each Timepoint
At Day 29
91.67 Percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Performed Line-field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography (LC-OCT) for Clinical and Sub Clinical Lesions Assessment at Each Timepoint
At Day 57
100.00 Percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Performed Line-field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography (LC-OCT) for Clinical and Sub Clinical Lesions Assessment at Each Timepoint
At Day 8
91.67 Percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Performed Line-field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography (LC-OCT) for Clinical and Sub Clinical Lesions Assessment at Each Timepoint
At Day 15
91.67 Percentage of participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: From start of study administration up to Day 57

Population: Safety population consisted of FAS participants.

An adverse event (AE) is as any untoward medical occurrence associated with the use of an intervention in humans after providing written informed consent for participation in the study until the end of study visit, whether considered intervention-related or not. A TEAE is defined as an AE with an onset that occurs after receiving study drug. Severity of TEAEs is graded as follows: Grade 1 Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2 Moderate; minimal, local or noninvasive intervention indicated; limiting age-appropriate activities of daily living. Grade 3 Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self-care activities of daily living. Grade 4 Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=334 Participants
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Severity of TEAEs
Participants with TEAEs
153 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Severity of TEAEs
Severity of TEAEs: Grade 1
132 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Severity of TEAEs
Severity of TEAEs: Grade 2
17 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Severity of TEAEs
Severity of TEAEs: Grade 3
3 Participants
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Severity of TEAEs
Severity of TEAEs: Grade 4
1 Participants

Adverse Events

Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 153 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Other adverse events
Measure
Tirbanibulin 2.5 mg
n=334 participants at risk
Participants applied tirbanibulin ointment- topically at a dose of 2.5 mg once daily for 5 consecutive days on the face or scalp.
Ear and labyrinth disorders
Deafness neurosensory
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Eye disorders
Conjunctival haemorrhage
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Eye disorders
Eye swelling
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal discomfort
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhoea
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Gastrointestinal disorders
Vomiting
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Application site hypersensitivity
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Application site pain
0.90%
3/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Asthenia
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Burning sensation
5.1%
17/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Chills
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Fatigue
1.8%
6/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Inflammation
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Pain
9.3%
31/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Temperature intolerance
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
General disorders
Tenderness
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Immune system disorders
Hypersensitivity
1.8%
6/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Infections and infestations
COVID 19
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Infections and infestations
Conjunctivitis
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Infections and infestations
Nasopharyngitis
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Infections and infestations
Pharyngitis
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Infections and infestations
Upper respiratory tract infection
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Contusion
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Fall
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Skin injury
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Wound
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Gout
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Back pain
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Basal cell carcinoma
0.90%
3/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Neoplasm
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Nervous system disorders
Dizziness
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Nervous system disorders
Headache
3.9%
13/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Nervous system disorders
Paraesthesia
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Nervous system disorders
Somnolence
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Blister
1.5%
5/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Cellulite
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermatitis allergic
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Pain of skin
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Paraesthesia
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Photodermatosis
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Pruritus
27.5%
92/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Skin burning sensation
0.60%
2/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Thermal burn
1.2%
4/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Vascular disorders
Hypertension
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57
Vascular disorders
Hypotension
0.30%
1/334 • From start of study administration up to Day 57

Additional Information

Valentina Cappello/Global Medical Operations Manager

Almirall S.A

Phone: +34932913000

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place