ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01324232PRIMEUpdated Nov 22, 2021Results posted

Safety and Efficacy of AVP-923 in the Treatment of Central Neuropathic Pain in Multiple Sclerosis

A Phase 2 interventional study of AVP-923-45 and AVP-923-30 in Central Neuropathic Pain and Multiple Sclerosis, sponsored by Avanir Pharmaceuticals. Completed at 72 sites in 5 countries. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 85 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2021-11-22.

Sponsored by Avanir Pharmaceuticals (part of Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd.) · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
209
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 85 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of 3 doses of AVP-923 capsules in the treatment of central neuropathic pain in participants with multiple sclerosis.

Read the detailed description

The objectives of the study are to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of 3 doses of AVP-923 (dextromethorphan [DM]/quinidine [Q]) capsules containing either 45 mg DM and 10 mg Q (AVP-923-45) or 30 mg DM and 10 mg Q (AVP-923-30) or 20 mg DM and 10 mg Q (AVP-923-20) compared to placebo, for the treatment of central neuropathic pain in a population of participants with multiple sclerosis (MS) over a 12-week period. The MS participant population enrolled includes participants with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and participants with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS).

02

Conditions studied

  • Central Neuropathic Pain
  • Multiple Sclerosis

Browse trials for

03

In context

Multiple Sclerosis

3,264 studies on the registry are indexed under Multiple Sclerosis; 659 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 209 is above the median of 50 across 2,201 interventional studies indexed under Multiple Sclerosis.

Browse Multiple Sclerosis studies →

Lead sponsor

Avanir Pharmaceuticals is the lead sponsor of 13 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

First submitted before Avanir Pharmaceuticals became part of Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd..

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 85 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Main Inclusion Criteria:

Multiple Sclerosis (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis [RRMS] or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis [SPMS]), Clinical history and symptoms of central neuropathic pain (dysesthetic pain) for at least 3 months prior to screening, pain rating scale (PRS) baseline score = or > 4, No MS relapse within previous 30 days.

Main Exclusion Criteria:

Personal history of complete heart block, corrected for heart rate (QTc) prolongation, or torsades de pointes, family history of congenital QT interval prolongation syndrome, Myasthenia Gravis, Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition (BDI-II) score > 19

Terms in these criteria, in plain language(1)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

QT and QTc

On an ECG, the QT interval is the time the heart’s lower chambers take to activate electrically and recover in each beat. QTc is that time adjusted for heart rate (QTcF by Fridericia’s formula, QTcB by Bazett’s). Some medicines lengthen it, and a long QTc can raise the risk of a dangerous heart rhythm.

The study may name a correction formula and a limit in milliseconds, often around 450–480.

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
209 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Placebo comparator
    Placebo

    Drug: Placebo

  • Experimental
    AVP-923-45

    Drug: AVP-923-45

  • Experimental
    AVP-923-30

    Drug: AVP-923-30

  • Experimental
    AVP-923-20

    Drug: AVP-923-20

Interventions

  • DrugAVP-923-45

    AVP-923-45 (dextromethorphan 45 mg/quinidine 10 mg) capsules administered once daily for first 7 days followed by twice daily for 11 weeks of the study to complete 12 weeks of treatment.

  • DrugAVP-923-30

    AVP-923-30 (dextromethorphan 30 mg/quinidine 10 mg) capsules administered once daily for first 7 days followed by twice daily for 11 weeks of the study to complete 12 weeks of treatment.

  • AVP-923-20 (dextromethorphan 20 mg/quinidine 10 mg) capsules administered once daily for first 7 days followed by twice daily for 11 weeks of the study to complete 12 weeks of treatment.

    Also known as: Nuedexta

  • DrugPlacebo

    Matching placebo capsules administered once daily for first 7 days followed by twice daily for 11 weeks of the study to complete 12 weeks of treatment.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Association Between the Dextromethorphan Plasma Concentration and the Change From Baseline Pain Rating Scale (PRS) Score to the Average Pain Rating Scale Score During Days 57 Through 84

    PRS required participants to rate their pain over the past 12 hours (hrs) on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=no pain; 10=worst possible pain). Baseline (B) PRS was defined as the average of the PRS scores in the last 7 days collected prior to the B visit. If participants did not have at least 4 PRS scores during the last 7 days prior to the B visit, then the average of up to 7 of the most recent PRS scores available prior to the B visit was used. Post-B PRS was the average of Days 57 through 84 values. For participants who did not have any PRS scores during Days 57 through 84, the average of the last 7 available post-B PRS scores was used. Change from B was calculated as the post-B score minus B score. The average logarithms of dextromethorphan plasma concentrations (Cmax) on Days 22 and 50 are reported in primary outcome measure #2 below. Pearson correlation was calculated between Cmax as one group of data across the reporting groups and Change from Baseline in PRS score.

    Time frame: Baseline; Days 57 through 84 (PRS score); Days 22 and 50 (dextromethorphan plasma concentrations)

  2. Average Logarithms of Dextromethorphan (DM) Plasma Concentrations (Cmax) on Days 22 and 50

    The average of the logarithms of the DM plasma concentrations on Days 22 and 50 were presented.

    Time frame: 0 to 3 hours post-dose on Day 22 and 50

Secondary outcomes

  1. Comparison of the Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline PRS Score to the Average PRS Score During Days 57 Through 84

    The PRS required participants to rate their pain over the past 12 hours on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=no pain; 10=worst possible pain) by circling the number that best described their pain on average over the past 12 hours. Baseline PRS was defined as the average of the PRS scores in the last 7 days collected prior to the Baseline visit. If participants did not have at least 4 PRS scores during the last 7 days prior to the Baseline visit, then the average of up to 7 of the most recent PRS scores available prior to the Baseline visit was used. Post-Baseline PRS was the average of the Day 57 through 84 values. For participants who did not have any PRS scores during Days 57 through 84, the average of the last 7 available post-Baseline PRS scores was used. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline score minus the Baseline score.

    Time frame: Baseline; Days 57 through 84

  2. Mean Change From Baseline in Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) Scores at Days 57 Through 84

    The FSS questionnaire consisted of 9 statements that attempted to explore the severity of fatigue symptoms in participants with MS and other conditions, including chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus, and was designed to differentiate fatigue from clinical depression because both share some of the same symptoms. Participants were asked to respond to each statement on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 indicating "Strongly Disagree" and 7 indicating "Strongly Agree." Total score ranging from 9 to 63, was computed as the sum of the sub-scores for all 9 statements; a higher score indicated increasing fatigue. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. Post-Baseline FSS score was the average of Day 57 through 84 values. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the FSS change from Baseline to Days 85 as the dependent variable,

    Time frame: Baseline; Days 57 through 84

  3. Mean Change From Baseline in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) Scores at Days 22 and 85

    The EDSS, a method of quantifying disability in participants with MS was based on neurological examination of 8 functional systems (FS) (pyramidal, cerebellar, brainstem, sensory, bowel and bladder, visual, cerebral, and other) that allowed neurologists to assign a FS score to each of these systems. Neurological findings in each FS were scored on a scale of 0 (low level of problems) to 5 (high level of problems). The "other" category was not rated numerically but measured disability related to a particular issue, like motor loss. A total averaged EDSS score was then calculated on a scale of 0 (normal) to 10 (death from MS). The total EDSS score was determined by 2 factors: gait and FS scores. A higher score indicated greater disability. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline; Days 22 and 85

  4. Mean Change From Baseline in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) Scores at Day 85

    MSIS-29, an instrument measuring the physical (20 items) and psychological (9 items) impact of MS from the participants' perspective was used to evaluate therapeutic effectiveness from the participants' perspective. Participants were asked to circle the response that best described the impact of MS on daily life on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The total MSIS-29 score ranged from 0 to 145, was calculated as the sum of the sub-scores for all 29 questions, with lower scores indicating better quality of life. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the MSIS-29 score change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline MSIS-29 as a covariate.

    Time frame: Baseline; Day 85

  5. Mean Change From Baseline in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) Scores at Day 85

    PSQI, a self-rated questionnaire was used to assess sleep quality and disturbances over a 1-month time interval. A total of 19 individual items generated 7 component scores: subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication, and daytime dysfunction. Each component was scored from 0 (no difficulty) to 3 (severe difficulty). The sum of the scores for the 7 components yielded 1 global score (ranging from 0 to 21). Higher PSQI score indicated worse quality of sleep. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the PSQI change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline PQIS as a covariate.

    Time frame: Baseline; Day 85

  6. Mean Change From Baseline in MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) Scores at Day 85

    MSNQ, a self-reporting, 15-item questionnaire was used to screen for cognitive impairment in participants with MS. Participants (or their informants) scored each item on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (often and greatly interferes with life). The total MSNQ score was calculated as the sum of the sub-scores for all 15 questions and thus ranged from 0 to 60. A higher score indicated greater impairment. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the MSNQ score change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline MSNQ as a covariate.

    Time frame: Baseline; Day 85

  7. Mean Change From Baseline in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) Scores at Day 85

    BDI-II, a 21-item, self-reported instrument was used to assess the existence and severity of symptoms of depression. Each item corresponded to a symptom of depression and as scored on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 to 3. Participants were asked to consider each statement as it related to the way they have felt for the past 2 weeks. Each of the 21 items were summed to give a single score for the BDI-II (ranging from 0 to 63). A total score of 0 to 13 indicated minimal depression, a score of 14 to 19 indicated mild depression, a score of 20 to 28 indicated moderate depression, and a score of 29 to 63 indicated severe depression. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the BDI-II change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline BDI-II as a covariate.

    Time frame: Baseline; Day 85

  8. Mean Change From Baseline in Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) Scores at Day 85

    The SDMT assessed organic cerebral dysfunction in both children (8 years and older) and adults. The SDMT involved a simple substitution task that normal participants could easily perform. Using a reference key, the examinee had 90 seconds to pair specific numbers with given geometric figures. The SDMT score was the total correct response (not counting errors) in 90 seconds and ranged from 0 to 110. Lower scores indicated increased dysfunction. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the SDMT change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline SDMT as a covariate.

    Time frame: Baseline; Day 85

  9. Mean Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Scores at Days 22, 50, and 85

    The NRS was an 11-point scale for participant self-reporting of pain. The overall scores ranged from 0 (no spasticity) to 10 (worst possible spasticity). Higher scores indicated increased aggression.

    Time frame: Days 22, 50, and 85

  10. Mean Overall Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scores at Day 85

    The PGIC was a standard, validated 7-point categorical scale. The participant was asked to assess the overall change in his or her central neuropathic pain symptoms since entry into the study on a scale of 0 to 7 (0=much better; 7=much worse). Higher scores indicated worsening.

    Time frame: Day 85

Other outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline in Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) Scores

    MAS is not considered as a true endpoint. MAS scores were assessed at Baseline only. Change from Baseline could not be calculated because data for the later timepoints was not collected.

    Time frame: Baseline; Day 85

07

Results

Posted Nov 22, 2021

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestonePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
Started49535453
Completed44424142
Not completed5111311
Withdrew: Protocol violation0002
Withdrew: Missing0010
Withdrew: Participant's personal reason/decision0100
Withdrew: Lack of efficacy2122
Withdrew: Participant refused medication0100
Withdrew: Intercurrent illness0001
Withdrew: Adverse event2566
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject0340
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up1000

Outcome measures

PrimaryAssociation Between the Dextromethorphan Plasma Concentration and the Change From Baseline Pain Rating Scale (PRS) Score to the Average Pain Rating Scale Score During Days 57 Through 84

PRS required participants to rate their pain over the past 12 hours (hrs) on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=no pain; 10=worst possible pain). Baseline (B) PRS was defined as the average of the PRS scores in the last 7 days collected prior to the B visit. If participants did not have at least 4 PRS scores during the last 7 days prior to the B visit, then the average of up to 7 of the most recent PRS scores available prior to the B visit was used. Post-B PRS was the average of Days 57 through 84 values. For participants who did not have any PRS scores during Days 57 through 84, the average of the last 7 available post-B PRS scores was used. Change from B was calculated as the post-B score minus B score. The average logarithms of dextromethorphan plasma concentrations (Cmax) on Days 22 and 50 are reported in primary outcome measure #2 below. Pearson correlation was calculated between Cmax as one group of data across the reporting groups and Change from Baseline in PRS score.

Time frame:
Baseline; Days 57 through 84 (PRS score); Days 22 and 50 (dextromethorphan plasma concentrations)
Reported as:
Median · units on a scale
Association Between the Dextromethorphan Plasma Concentration and the Change From Baseline Pain Rating Scale (PRS) Score to the Average Pain Rating Scale Score During Days 57 Through 84
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Association Between the Dextromethorphan Plasma Concentration and the Change From Baseline Pain Rating Scale (PRS) Score to the Average Pain Rating Scale Score During Days 57 Through 84-1.821 (-7.86 to 2.06)-2.143 (-7.60 to 5.71)-2.650 (-6.54 to 3.00)-1.679 (-6.79 to 2.00)-2.000 (-7.86 to 5.71)
Statistical analysis
  • Total · t-test, 2 sided · p = = 0.9827 · Pearson correlation: 0.0019
PrimaryAverage Logarithms of Dextromethorphan (DM) Plasma Concentrations (Cmax) on Days 22 and 50

The average of the logarithms of the DM plasma concentrations on Days 22 and 50 were presented.

Time frame:
0 to 3 hours post-dose on Day 22 and 50
Reported as:
Median · Log Micrograms per Liter
Average Logarithms of Dextromethorphan (DM) Plasma Concentrations (Cmax) on Days 22 and 50
Log Micrograms per LiterPlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Average Logarithms of Dextromethorphan (DM) Plasma Concentrations (Cmax) on Days 22 and 50—4.019 (2.38 to 4.84)4.493 (3.27 to 5.55)4.758 (-1.61 to 5.81)4.394 (-1.61 to 5.81)
SecondaryComparison of the Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline PRS Score to the Average PRS Score During Days 57 Through 84

The PRS required participants to rate their pain over the past 12 hours on a scale of 0 to 10 (0=no pain; 10=worst possible pain) by circling the number that best described their pain on average over the past 12 hours. Baseline PRS was defined as the average of the PRS scores in the last 7 days collected prior to the Baseline visit. If participants did not have at least 4 PRS scores during the last 7 days prior to the Baseline visit, then the average of up to 7 of the most recent PRS scores available prior to the Baseline visit was used. Post-Baseline PRS was the average of the Day 57 through 84 values. For participants who did not have any PRS scores during Days 57 through 84, the average of the last 7 available post-Baseline PRS scores was used. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline score minus the Baseline score.

Time frame:
Baseline; Days 57 through 84
Reported as:
Least squares mean · units on a scale
Comparison of the Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline PRS Score to the Average PRS Score During Days 57 Through 84
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45AVP-923-20 and AVP-923-30AVP-923-30 and AVP-923-45All AVP-923
Comparison of the Adjusted Mean Change From Baseline PRS Score to the Average PRS Score During Days 57 Through 84-2.04 ± 0.332-2.07 ± 0.319-2.41 ± 0.316-2.00 ± 0.319-2.24 ± 0.224-2.21 ± 0.225-2.16 ± 0.184
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 vs AVP-923-20 and AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-30 and AVP-923-45 vs All AVP-923 · ANCOVA · p = =0.8869
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · ANCOVA · p = =0.9381 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.04 · 95% CI -0.94 to 0.87
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · ANCOVA · p = =0.4128 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.38 · 95% CI -1.28 to 0.53
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.9427 · Adjusted mean difference: 0.03 · 95% CI -0.88 to 0.94
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 and AVP-923-30 · ANCOVA · p = =0.6075 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.21 · 95% CI -1.0 to 0.58
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 and AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.6690 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.17 · 95% CI -0.96 to 0.62
  • Placebo vs All AVP-923 · ANCOVA · p = =0.7394 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.13 · 95% CI -0.88 to 0.62
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) Scores at Days 57 Through 84

The FSS questionnaire consisted of 9 statements that attempted to explore the severity of fatigue symptoms in participants with MS and other conditions, including chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus, and was designed to differentiate fatigue from clinical depression because both share some of the same symptoms. Participants were asked to respond to each statement on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 indicating "Strongly Disagree" and 7 indicating "Strongly Agree." Total score ranging from 9 to 63, was computed as the sum of the sub-scores for all 9 statements; a higher score indicated increasing fatigue. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. Post-Baseline FSS score was the average of Day 57 through 84 values. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the FSS change from Baseline to Days 85 as the dependent variable,

Time frame:
Baseline; Days 57 through 84
Reported as:
Least squares mean · units on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) Scores at Days 57 Through 84
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
Mean Change From Baseline in Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) Scores at Days 57 Through 84-3.32 ± 1.742-2.00 ± 1.680-6.32 ± 1.642-2.12 ± 1.662
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.9731 (The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.)
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · Mean difference (final values): 1.32 · 95% CI -3.46 to 6.09
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · Mean difference (final values): -3 · 95% CI -7.72 to 1.72
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · Mean difference (final values): 1.2 · 95% CI -3.54 to 5.95
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) Scores at Days 22 and 85

The EDSS, a method of quantifying disability in participants with MS was based on neurological examination of 8 functional systems (FS) (pyramidal, cerebellar, brainstem, sensory, bowel and bladder, visual, cerebral, and other) that allowed neurologists to assign a FS score to each of these systems. Neurological findings in each FS were scored on a scale of 0 (low level of problems) to 5 (high level of problems). The "other" category was not rated numerically but measured disability related to a particular issue, like motor loss. A total averaged EDSS score was then calculated on a scale of 0 (normal) to 10 (death from MS). The total EDSS score was determined by 2 factors: gait and FS scores. A higher score indicated greater disability. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.

Time frame:
Baseline; Days 22 and 85
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) Scores at Days 22 and 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Day 22-0.1 ± 0.35-0.1 ± 0.56-0.2 ± 0.67-0.0 ± 0.63-0.1 ± 0.56
Day 85-0.1 ± 0.75-0.1 ± 0.67-0.1 ± 0.460.0 ± 0.58-0.1 ± 0.62
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) Scores at Day 85

MSIS-29, an instrument measuring the physical (20 items) and psychological (9 items) impact of MS from the participants' perspective was used to evaluate therapeutic effectiveness from the participants' perspective. Participants were asked to circle the response that best described the impact of MS on daily life on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). The total MSIS-29 score ranged from 0 to 145, was calculated as the sum of the sub-scores for all 29 questions, with lower scores indicating better quality of life. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the MSIS-29 score change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline MSIS-29 as a covariate.

Time frame:
Baseline; Day 85
Reported as:
Least squares mean · units on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) Scores at Day 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
Mean Change From Baseline in Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29) Scores at Day 85-4.84 ± 2.651-4.34 ± 2.551-6.50 ± 2.526-1.41 ± 2.550
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.4778 (The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.)
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · Adjusted mean difference: 0.49 · 95% CI -6.76 to 7.74
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · Adjusted mean difference: -1.67 · 95% CI -8.89 to 5.56
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · Adjusted mean difference: 3.43 · 95% CI -3.83 to 10.68
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) Scores at Day 85

PSQI, a self-rated questionnaire was used to assess sleep quality and disturbances over a 1-month time interval. A total of 19 individual items generated 7 component scores: subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication, and daytime dysfunction. Each component was scored from 0 (no difficulty) to 3 (severe difficulty). The sum of the scores for the 7 components yielded 1 global score (ranging from 0 to 21). Higher PSQI score indicated worse quality of sleep. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the PSQI change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline PQIS as a covariate.

Time frame:
Baseline; Day 85
Reported as:
Least squares mean · units on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) Scores at Day 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
Mean Change From Baseline in Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) Scores at Day 85-0.51 ± 0.490-1.02 ± 0.471-1.36 ± 0.467-1.71 ± 0.472
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.0685 (The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.)
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · Mean difference (final values): -0.51 · 95% CI -1.85 to 0.83
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · Mean difference (final values): -0.85 · 95% CI -2.19 to 0.48
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · Mean difference (final values): -1.2 · 95% CI -2.54 to 0.15
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) Scores at Day 85

MSNQ, a self-reporting, 15-item questionnaire was used to screen for cognitive impairment in participants with MS. Participants (or their informants) scored each item on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 4 (often and greatly interferes with life). The total MSNQ score was calculated as the sum of the sub-scores for all 15 questions and thus ranged from 0 to 60. A higher score indicated greater impairment. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the MSNQ score change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline MSNQ as a covariate.

Time frame:
Baseline; Day 85
Reported as:
Least squares mean · units on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) Scores at Day 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
Mean Change From Baseline in MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ) Scores at Day 85-0.99 ± 1.058-1.48 ± 1.020-1.88 ± 0.9980.47 ± 1.006
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.4201 (The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.)
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.49 · 95% CI -3.40 to 2.41
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.90 · 95% CI -3.76 to 1.97
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · Adjusted mean difference: 1.46 · 95% CI -1.42 to 4.34
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) Scores at Day 85

BDI-II, a 21-item, self-reported instrument was used to assess the existence and severity of symptoms of depression. Each item corresponded to a symptom of depression and as scored on a 4-point scale, ranging from 0 to 3. Participants were asked to consider each statement as it related to the way they have felt for the past 2 weeks. Each of the 21 items were summed to give a single score for the BDI-II (ranging from 0 to 63). A total score of 0 to 13 indicated minimal depression, a score of 14 to 19 indicated mild depression, a score of 20 to 28 indicated moderate depression, and a score of 29 to 63 indicated severe depression. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the BDI-II change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline BDI-II as a covariate.

Time frame:
Baseline; Day 85
Reported as:
Least squares mean · units on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) Scores at Day 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
Mean Change From Baseline in Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) Scores at Day 850.83 ± 0.868-0.26 ± 0.8350.21 ± 0.8281.15 ± 0.837
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.8068 (The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.)
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · Adjusted mean difference: -1.10 · 95% CI -3.47 to 1.28
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · Adjusted mean difference: -0.63 · 95% CI -2.99 to 1.74
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · Adjusted mean difference: 0.31 · 95% CI -2.07 to 2.69
SecondaryMean Change From Baseline in Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) Scores at Day 85

The SDMT assessed organic cerebral dysfunction in both children (8 years and older) and adults. The SDMT involved a simple substitution task that normal participants could easily perform. Using a reference key, the examinee had 90 seconds to pair specific numbers with given geometric figures. The SDMT score was the total correct response (not counting errors) in 90 seconds and ranged from 0 to 110. Lower scores indicated increased dysfunction. Baseline was defined as last non-missing measurement prior to dosing. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value. The analysis was carried out using an ANCOVA model, with the SDMT change from Baseline to Day 85 as the dependent variable, treatment group as a fixed effect, and the Baseline SDMT as a covariate.

Time frame:
Baseline; Day 85
Reported as:
Least squares mean · units on a scale
Mean Change From Baseline in Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) Scores at Day 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
Total correct responses, Oral0.59 ± 2.0452.96 ± 1.8811.91 ± 1.5252.06 ± 1.809
Total correct responses, Written1.85 ± 1.1113.62 ± 1.0860.16 ± 1.1580.20 ± 1.083
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.6315 (The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Oral responses.)
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · Adjusted mean difference: 2.37 · 95% CI -3.19 to 7.93
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · Adjusted mean difference: 1.31 · 95% CI -3.83 to 6.45
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · Adjusted mean difference: 1.46 · 95% CI -4.01 to 6.94
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.1485 (P-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect. Written responses.)
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 · Mean difference (final values): 1.77 · 95% CI -1.31 to 4.85
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-30 · Mean difference (final values): -1.68 · 95% CI -4.86 to 1.49
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-45 · Mean difference (final values): -1.65 · 95% CI -4.71 to 1.41
SecondaryMean Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Scores at Days 22, 50, and 85

The NRS was an 11-point scale for participant self-reporting of pain. The overall scores ranged from 0 (no spasticity) to 10 (worst possible spasticity). Higher scores indicated increased aggression.

Time frame:
Days 22, 50, and 85
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Mean Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Scores at Days 22, 50, and 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Day 223.29 ± 2.7173.56 ± 3.0163.41 ± 2.7233.90 ± 2.6493.54 ± 2.762
Day 503.24 ± 2.7212.89 ± 2.6334.06 ± 2.8883.54 ± 2.3643.42 ± 2.666
Day 853.66 ± 2.8693.13 ± 3.0853.87 ± 2.8253.36 ± 2.6663.50 ± 2.857
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · t-test, 2 sided · p = =0.1404
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · t-test, 2 sided · p = =0.0805
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · t-test, 2 sided · p = =0.0551
SecondaryMean Overall Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scores at Day 85

The PGIC was a standard, validated 7-point categorical scale. The participant was asked to assess the overall change in his or her central neuropathic pain symptoms since entry into the study on a scale of 0 to 7 (0=much better; 7=much worse). Higher scores indicated worsening.

Time frame:
Day 85
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Mean Overall Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scores at Day 85
units on a scalePlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Mean Overall Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scores at Day 853.58 ± 1.8424.42 ± 2.3983.70 ± 2.3463.64 ± 2.2983.84 ± 2.244
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs AVP-923-20 vs AVP-923-30 vs AVP-923-45 · ANCOVA · p = =0.9207 (The p-value presented tests the hypothesis for overall treatment effect versus no treatment effect.)
Other pre-specifiedChange From Baseline in Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) Scores

MAS is not considered as a true endpoint. MAS scores were assessed at Baseline only. Change from Baseline could not be calculated because data for the later timepoints was not collected.

Time frame:
Baseline; Day 85

Results for this outcome have not been posted.

Adverse events

Collected over AEs were collected up to Week 12.. Non-serious events are listed at a 3% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Placebo0/49 (0%)1/49 (2%)33/49 (67.3%)
AVP-923-200/54 (0%)1/54 (1.9%)40/54 (74.1%)
AVP-923-300/53 (0%)1/53 (1.9%)43/53 (81.1%)
AVP-923-450/53 (0%)2/53 (3.8%)40/53 (75.5%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventPlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
DuodenitisGastrointestinal disorders1/490/540/530/53
PneumoniaInfections and infestations0/490/541/530/53
TonsillitisInfections and infestations0/490/540/531/53
VertigoEar and labyrinth disorders0/490/540/531/53
DiplopiaEye disorders0/490/540/531/53
CellulitisInfections and infestations0/491/540/530/53
Most frequent other events
Showing 10 of 46
Most frequent other events
EventPlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45
HeadacheNervous system disorders6/4911/5414/538/53
DizzinessNervous system disorders4/494/549/5313/53
NauseaGastrointestinal disorders7/4912/5410/538/53
NasopharyngitisInfections and infestations2/491/547/534/53
SomnolenceNervous system disorders2/495/543/535/53
Urinary tract infectionInfections and infestations3/494/545/533/53
Muscle spasmsMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders3/491/545/530/53
VertigoEar and labyrinth disorders0/491/541/535/53
VomitingGastrointestinal disorders0/495/542/532/53
Neuropathic painNervous system disorders4/492/543/530/53

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)PlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Mean49.7 ± 8.4147.2 ± 9.2049.1 ± 11.2148.1 ± 13.0448.5 ± 10.63
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)PlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Female97121240
Male40464241169
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)PlaceboAVP-923-20AVP-923-30AVP-923-45Total
Caucasian43464948186
Black or African American345416
Asian10001
Hispanic or Latino23016
08

Study locations

72 sites
  • North Central Neurology Associates PC
    Cullman, Alabama 35058, United States
  • St. Joseph's Hospital Medical Center
    Phoenix, Arizona 85013, United States
  • Alta Bates Summit Medical Center
    Berkeley, California 94705, United States
  • University of California, Irvine
    Orange, California 92868, United States
  • Coordinated Clinical Research
    San Diego, California 92103, United States
  • University of California, San Francisco
    San Francisco, California 94158, United States
  • University of Colorado
    Aurora, Colorado 80045, United States
  • Neurology Associates, PA
    Maitland, Florida 32751, United States
  • Collier Neurologic Specialists
    Naples, Florida 34102, United States
  • Laszlo J. Mate, MD
    North Palm Beach, Florida 33408, United States
  • Neurology Associates of Ormond Beach
    Ormond Beach, Florida 32174, United States
  • Neurological Associates
    Pompano Beach, Florida 33060, United States
  • Neurologique Foundation
    Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082-4040, United States
  • Suncoast Neuroscience Associates, Inc.
    Saint Petersburg, Florida 33713, United States
  • University of South Florida
    Tampa, Florida 33612, United States
  • Geodyssey Research, LLC
    Vero Beach, Florida 32960, United States
  • Shepard Center
    Atlanta, Georgia 30309, United States
  • Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center
    Chicago, Illinois 60612, United States
  • Consultants in Neurology
    Northbrook, Illinois 60062, United States
  • Josephson Wallack Munshower Neurology, P.C.
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46256, United States
  • MidAmerica Neuroscience Institute
    Lenexa, Kansas 66214, United States
  • Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
    Baltimore, Maryland 21287, United States
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
    Boston, Massachusetts 02215, United States
  • Michigan Neurology Associates, P.C.
    Clinton Township, Michigan 48035, United States
  • Wayne State University
    Detroit, Michigan 48201, United States
  • Henry Ford Health System
    Detroit, Michigan 48202, United States
  • Advanced Neurology Specialists
    Great Falls, Montana 59405, United States
  • Neurology Associates PC
    Lincoln, Nebraska 68506, United States
  • Albany Medical Center Hospital
    Albany, New York 12208, United States
  • NYU-Hospital for Joint Diseases
    New York, New York 10003, United States
  • University of Rochester
    Rochester, New York 14642, United States
  • SUNY at Stony Brook
    Stony Brook, New York 11794, United States
  • Carolinas Medical Center
    Charlotte, North Carolina 28207, United States
  • Cleveland Clinic Foundation
    Cleveland, Ohio 44195, United States
  • Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104, United States
  • Drexel University College of Medicine
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, United States
  • Geisinger Health System
    Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18711, United States
  • Advanced Neurosciences Institute
    Franklin, Tennessee 37064, United States
  • Baylor College of Medicine
    Houston, Texas 77030, United States
  • Rocky Mountain MS Clinic
    Salt Lake City, Utah 84103, United States
  • Neurological Associates
    Henrico, Virginia 23226, United States
  • MS Center of Greater Washington
    Vienna, Virginia 22182, United States
  • Swedish Medical Center
    Seattle, Washington 98122, United States
  • MultiCare Health System
    Tacoma, Washington 98405, United States
  • Instituto de Neurologia Cognitiva
    Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1126AAB, Argentina
  • Hospital Britanico de Buenos Aires
    Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1280AEB, Argentina
  • Hospital Italiano
    Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1181ACH, Argentina
  • Instituto Argentino de Investigacion Neurologica
    Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires C1015ABR, Argentina
  • Hospital Churruca-Visca
    Buenos Aires, C1437JCH, Argentina
  • Fundación Argentina Contra las Enfermedades Neurológicas del Envejecimiento - FACENE
    Buenos Aires, CP1117ABD, Argentina
  • Medeos - Centro de Medicina Integral e Investigación Clínica
    Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Instituto de Neurología y Neurorrehabilitación del Litoral
    Santa Fe, Argentina
  • Fakultni nemocnice u sv. Anny v Brne
    Brno, Czechia
  • Fakultni nemocnice Hradec Kralove
    Hradec Kralove, 500 0, Czechia
  • Nemocnice Jihlava, prispevkova organizace
    Jihlava, 586 33, Czechia
  • Fakultni Nemocnice Ostrava
    Ostrava, 708 52, Czechia
  • Vseobecna fakultni nemocnice v Praze
    Praha 2, 128 21, Czechia
  • Szpital Powiatowy w Czeladzi
    Czeladz, 41-250, Poland
  • Pomorskie Centrum Traumatologii im. M. Kopernika w Gdansku
    Gdansk, 80-803, Poland
  • Diagnomed Clinical Research Sp. z.o.o.
    Katowice, 40-594, Poland
  • Niepubliczny Zaklad Opieki Zdrowotnej NEURO-MEDIC
    Katowice, 40-752, Poland
  • Niepubliczny Zaklad Opieki Zdrowotnej PROFILAKTYKA
    Katowice, Poland
  • Zespol Opieki Zdrowotnej w Konskich
    Konskie, 26-200, Poland
  • Specjalistyczny Gabinet Neurologiczny
    Plewiska, 62-064, Poland
  • Niepubliczny Zaklad Opieki Zdrowotnej NEURO-KARD Ilkowski i Partnerzy Spolka Partnerska Lekarzy
    Poznan, 61-289, Poland
  • Osrodek Badan Klinicznych Indywidualnej Specjalistycznej Praktyki Lekarskiej
    Szczecin, 70-215, Poland
  • Hospital del Mar
    Barcelona, Cataluña 08003, Spain
  • Hospital Vall D´Hebron
    Barcelona, Cataluña 08035, Spain
  • Hospital Universitari de Girona Dr. Josep Trueta
    Girona, Cataluña 17007, Spain
  • Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca
    El Palmar, Murcia 30120, Spain
  • Hospital Univ. Nuestra Sra. De La Candelaria
    Santa Cruz De Tenerife, 38010, Spain
  • Hospital Universitario Vírgen Macarena
    Sevilla, 41009, Spain
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 22, 2021, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01324232
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Mar 28, 2011
Start date
Sep 8, 2011
Primary completion
Sep 26, 2013
Completion
Sep 26, 2013
Results posted
Nov 22, 2021
Last update
Nov 22, 2021

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Oct 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drug tested here: Dextromethorphan

Start the discussion