CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02270983Updated Apr 8, 2019Results posted

Phase 2 Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel Group Trial of Linaclotide Administered to Patients With Opioid-Induced Constipation Receiving Chronic Opioid Treatment for Non-Cancer Pain

A Phase 2 interventional study of Linaclotide 145 micrograms and Linaclotide 290 micrograms in Opioid-Induced Constipation, sponsored by Forest Laboratories. Completed at 77 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-04-08.

Sponsored by Forest Laboratories · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
254
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of linaclotide for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC), in adults receiving stable opioid treatment for chronic non-cancer pain that has been present for a minimum of 3 months.

This study included up to a 4-week Screening Period, and a 2 to 3-week Pretreatment Period. Patients meeting the entry criteria were randomized to 1 of 2 doses of linaclotide or placebo once per day for 8 weeks. This 8-week study assessed the effects of linaclotide on bowel movement frequency, as well as other bowel symptoms of OIC.

02

Conditions studied

  • Opioid-Induced Constipation

Keywords

  • Opioid-Induced Constipation
  • Linaclotide
  • Linzess
03

In context

Constipation

1,018 studies on the registry are indexed under Constipation; 139 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 254 is above the median of 80 across 850 interventional studies indexed under Constipation.

Browse Constipation studies →

Lead sponsor

Forest Laboratories is the lead sponsor of 165 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.

Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 6 (100%) have results posted.

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

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Patient has chronic non-cancer pain that has been present for a minimum of 3 months
  • Patient has been receiving a stable oral dose of a full-opioid agonist for at least 4 days per week during the 8 consecutive weeks
  • Patient meets protocol criteria for Opioid-Induced Constipation (OIC): \< 3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week and reports one of the following symptoms for at least 4 weeks:

    1. Straining during > 25% of BMs
    2. Lumpy or hard stools during > 25% of BMs
    3. Sensation of incomplete evacuation during > 25% of BMs
  • Patient meets the colonoscopy requirements defined by the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines
  • Patient has successfully completed protocol procedures (with no clinically significant findings)
  • Patient is compliant with Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) for daily diary reporting
  • Patient has a total of \< 6 SBMs in IVRS during the 14 days before and up to the time of Randomization
  • Patient has adequate relief and well-controlled pain with current dose of opioid

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patient has been using opioids for abdominal pain
  • Patient has symptoms of or been diagnosed with chronic constipation or chronic idiopathic constipation prior to initiation of opioid treatment
  • Patient has symptoms of or been diagnosed with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) prior to initiation of opioid treatment
  • Patient has a history of loose or watery stools for > 25% of BMs during the 3 months before the Screening in the absence of laxatives, suppositories, or enemas
  • Patient has a structural abnormality of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract or a disease or condition that can affect GI motility
  • Patient has any protocol-excluded or clinically significant medical or surgical history that would limit the patient's ability to complete or participate in this clinical trial or could confound the study assessments
05

Study design

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

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Linaclotide 145 micrograms

    Oral capsule, taken once daily each morning at least 30 minutes before breakfast, with the exception of the first Treatment Period dose which will be taken at the study center after at least a 2-hour fast.

    Drug: Linaclotide 145 micrograms

  • Experimental
    Linaclotide 290 micrograms

    Oral capsule, taken once daily each morning at least 30 minutes before breakfast, with the exception of the first Treatment Period dose which will be taken at the study center after at least a 2-hour fast.

    Drug: Linaclotide 290 micrograms

  • Experimental
    Placebo

    Oral capsule, taken once daily each morning at least 30 minutes before breakfast, with the exception of the first Treatment Period dose which will be taken at the study center after at least a 2-hour fast.

    Drug: Placebo

Interventions

  • DrugLinaclotide 145 micrograms

    Also known as: Linzess

  • DrugLinaclotide 290 micrograms

    Also known as: Linzess

  • DrugPlacebo

    Matching placebo

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change From Baseline in 8-Week SBM Frequency Rate (SBMs/Week)

    Change from baseline in 8-Week SBM frequency rate (SBMs/week) during the Treatment Period.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8

Secondary outcomes

  1. Time to First SBM After the First Dose of Investigational Product

    The median time to the first SBM after the first dose of investigational product

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 0) up to 8 weeks

  2. Percentage of Participants Meeting 6/8 Week Spontaneous Bowel Movement (SBM) 3 + 1 Responder Criteria

    A 6/8 Week SBM 3 + 1 responder was a participant who met the weekly SBM 3 + 1 responder criteria for at least 6 out of the 8 weeks of the Treatment Period. For each week in the Treatment Period, a weekly SBM 3 + 1 responder was a patient who had an SBM weekly rate ≥ 3 and an increase ≥ 1 in the SBM weekly rate from baseline for that week.

    Time frame: 8-week treatment period

  3. Change From Baseline in 8-Week Stool Consistency

    Stool Consistency was assessed using the 7-Point Bristol Stool Form Scale: 1. = separate hard lumps like nuts (difficult to pass) 2. = sausage shaped but lumpy 3. = like a sausage but with cracks on surface 4. = like a sausage or snake, smooth and soft 5. = soft blobs with clear-cut edges (passed easily) 6. = fluffy pieces with ragged edges, a mushy 7. = watery, no solid pieces (entirely liquid)

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8

  4. Change From Baseline in 8-Week Straining

    Straining was measured on a 5-point ordinal scale where a value of 1 is "not at all" and a value of 5 is "an extreme amount."

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8

  5. Change From Baseline in 8-Week Abdominal Bloating

    Abdominal bloating was collected daily via IVRS calls and measured using an 11-point numerical rating scale, where 0 represents no abdominal bloating and 10 represents very severe abdominal bloating.

    Time frame: Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8

07

Results

Posted Apr 8, 2019

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestonePlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
Started798788
Completed708076
Not completed9712
Withdrew: Adverse event326
Withdrew: Lack of efficacy211
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject102
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up112
Withdrew: Protocol violation111
Withdrew: Family emergency010
Withdrew: Study procedure non-compliance100
Withdrew: Moved away from study site010

Outcome measures

PrimaryChange From Baseline in 8-Week SBM Frequency Rate (SBMs/Week)

Change from baseline in 8-Week SBM frequency rate (SBMs/week) during the Treatment Period.

Time frame:
Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8
Reported as:
Least squares mean · Number of SBMs per week
Change From Baseline in 8-Week SBM Frequency Rate (SBMs/Week)
Number of SBMs per weekPlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
Change From Baseline in 8-Week SBM Frequency Rate (SBMs/Week)1.474 ± 0.3612.799 ± 0.3503.382 ± 0.353
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 145 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = 0.0035 · Least squares mean difference: 1.325 · 95% CI 0.439 to 2.211
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 290 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = <0.0001 · Least squares mean difference: 1.908 · 95% CI 1.021 to 2.796
SecondaryTime to First SBM After the First Dose of Investigational Product

The median time to the first SBM after the first dose of investigational product

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 0) up to 8 weeks
Reported as:
Median · hours
Time to First SBM After the First Dose of Investigational Product
hoursPlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
Time to First SBM After the First Dose of Investigational Product47.1 (25.0 to 71.8)26.5 (21.8 to 45.0)28.7 (23.5 to 47.0)
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 145 Micrograms · Log Rank · p = 0.1429 · Cox proportional hazard: 1.28 · 95% CI 0.92 to 1.77
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 290 Micrograms · Log Rank · p = 0.0287 · Cox proportional hazard: 1.43 · 95% CI 1.04 to 1.97
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Meeting 6/8 Week Spontaneous Bowel Movement (SBM) 3 + 1 Responder Criteria

A 6/8 Week SBM 3 + 1 responder was a participant who met the weekly SBM 3 + 1 responder criteria for at least 6 out of the 8 weeks of the Treatment Period. For each week in the Treatment Period, a weekly SBM 3 + 1 responder was a patient who had an SBM weekly rate ≥ 3 and an increase ≥ 1 in the SBM weekly rate from baseline for that week.

Time frame:
8-week treatment period
Reported as:
Number · Percentage of Responders
Percentage of Participants Meeting 6/8 Week Spontaneous Bowel Movement (SBM) 3 + 1 Responder Criteria
Percentage of RespondersPlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
Percentage of Participants Meeting 6/8 Week Spontaneous Bowel Movement (SBM) 3 + 1 Responder Criteria33.340.247.1
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 145 Micrograms · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.3332 · Odds ratio (or): 1.37 · 95% CI 0.73 to 2.58Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 290 Micrograms · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0506 · Odds ratio (or): 1.92 · 95% CI 1.00 to 3.68Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests comparing specified treatment groups, controlling for geographic region.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in 8-Week Stool Consistency

Stool Consistency was assessed using the 7-Point Bristol Stool Form Scale: 1. = separate hard lumps like nuts (difficult to pass) 2. = sausage shaped but lumpy 3. = like a sausage but with cracks on surface 4. = like a sausage or snake, smooth and soft 5. = soft blobs with clear-cut edges (passed easily) 6. = fluffy pieces with ragged edges, a mushy 7. = watery, no solid pieces (entirely liquid)

Time frame:
Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8
Reported as:
Least squares mean · Units on a scale
Change From Baseline in 8-Week Stool Consistency
Units on a scalePlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
Change From Baseline in 8-Week Stool Consistency0.911 ± 0.1721.662 ± 0.1651.898 ± 0.168
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 145 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = 0.0007 · Least squares mean difference: 0.751 · 95% CI 0.324 to 1.178
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 290 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = <0.0001 · Least squares mean difference: 0.987 · 95% CI 0.558 to 1.416
SecondaryChange From Baseline in 8-Week Straining

Straining was measured on a 5-point ordinal scale where a value of 1 is "not at all" and a value of 5 is "an extreme amount."

Time frame:
Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8
Reported as:
Least squares mean · Units on a scale
Change From Baseline in 8-Week Straining
Units on a scalePlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
Change From Baseline in 8-Week Straining-0.753 ± 0.116-1.212 ± 0.111-1.422 ± 0.112
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 145 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = 0.0017 · Least squares mean difference: -0.460 · 95% CI -0.746 to -0.174
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 290 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = <0.0001 · Least squares mean difference: -0.669 · 95% CI -0.957 to -0.382
SecondaryChange From Baseline in 8-Week Abdominal Bloating

Abdominal bloating was collected daily via IVRS calls and measured using an 11-point numerical rating scale, where 0 represents no abdominal bloating and 10 represents very severe abdominal bloating.

Time frame:
Baseline (Week 0) to Week 8
Reported as:
Least squares mean · Units on a scale
Change From Baseline in 8-Week Abdominal Bloating
Units on a scalePlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
Change From Baseline in 8-Week Abdominal Bloating-0.983 ± 0.164-0.950 ± 0.160-1.590 ± 0.160
Statistical analysis
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 145 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = 0.8720 · Least squares mean difference: 0.033 · 95% CI -0.371 to 0.437
  • Placebo vs Linaclotide 290 Micrograms · ANCOVA · p = 0.0034 · Least squares mean difference: -0.607 · 95% CI -1.011 to -0.203

Adverse events

Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Placebo1/78 (1.3%)5/78 (6.4%)16/78 (20.5%)
Linaclotide 145 Micrograms0/87 (0%)0/87 (0%)24/87 (27.6%)
Linaclotide 290 Micrograms0/87 (0%)1/87 (1.1%)33/87 (37.9%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventPlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
SeizureNervous system disorders1/780/870/87
Ankle fractureInjury, poisoning and procedural complications1/780/870/87
FallInjury, poisoning and procedural complications1/780/870/87
Cardiac arrestCardiac disorders1/780/870/87
Calculus uretericRenal and urinary disorders1/780/870/87
Periprosthetic fractureInjury, poisoning and procedural complications1/780/870/87
Transient Ischaemic AttackCardiac disorders0/780/871/87
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventPlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 Micrograms
DiarrhoeaGastrointestinal disorders13/7824/8732/87
NauseaGastrointestinal disorders4/780/871/87

Baseline characteristics

Of the 254 participants who were randomized to treatment, 2 patients were randomized in error and did not receive investigational product. 252 of the randomized participants did receive investigational product and comprise the Safety and ITT populations.

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(Years)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
Mean52.2 ± 10.653.1 ± 9.254.0 ± 10.553.2 ± 10.1
Age, Customized
Age, Customized(Participants)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
18 to under 40114621
40 to under 65567167194
65 and over11121437
Sex/Gender, Customized
Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
Male313832101
Female474955151
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
Race — White667172209
Race — Black or African American9151034
Race — Asian3137
Race — American Indian or Alaska Native0011
Race — Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0000
Race — Multiple Races0011
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
Ethnicity — Hispanic or Latino45211
Ethnicity — Not Hispanic or Latino748285241
Weight
Weight(kg)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
Mean90.64 ± 24.5685.45 ± 22.7889.78 ± 22.6188.55 ± 23.31
Height
Height(cm)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
Mean168.05 ± 12.27170.70 ± 10.17168.00 ± 10.62168.95 ± 11.04
Body Mass Index (BMI)
Body Mass Index (BMI)(kg/m^2)PlaceboLinaclotide 145 MicrogramsLinaclotide 290 MicrogramsTotal
Mean32.17 ± 8.5729.09 ± 6.3231.77 ± 7.3930.97 ± 7.54

1 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

77 sites
  • Forest Investigative Site 002
    Anniston, Alabama 36207, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 001
    Foley, Alabama 36535, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 007
    Phoenix, Arizona 85029, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 008
    Tucson, Arizona 85710, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 003
    North Little Rock, Arkansas 72217, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 018
    Anaheim, California 92801, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 014
    Fountain Valley, California 92708, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 019
    Fresno, California 93702, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 017
    Garden Grove, California 92843, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 010
    Gold River, California 95670, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 009
    Lincoln, California 95648, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 012
    North Hollywood, California 91606, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 011
    Orange, California 92868, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 016
    Sacramento, California 95821, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 013
    San Diego, California 92108, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 015
    Santa Ana, California 92701, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 020
    Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 021
    Bristol, Connecticut 06010, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 035
    Boynton Beach, Florida 33426, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 038
    Bradenton, Florida 34208, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 024
    DeLand, Florida 32720, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 027
    Gainesville, Florida 32607, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 023
    Jacksonville, Florida 32257, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 036
    Jupiter, Florida 33458, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 037
    Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 33319, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 028
    Miami, Florida 33185, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 040
    Orlando, Florida 32801, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 022
    Oviedo, Florida 32765, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 034
    Port Orange, Florida 32129, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 029
    Seminole, Florida 33777, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 031
    Tampa, Florida 33603, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 033
    Tampa, Florida 33606, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 030
    Tampa, Florida 33613, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 039
    West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 032
    Weston, Florida 33331, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 041
    Marietta, Georgia 30060, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 042
    Woodstock, Georgia 30189, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 043
    Chicago, Illinois 60616, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 044
    Evansville, Indiana 47714, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 045
    Madisonville, Kentucky 42431, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 046
    Metairie, Louisiana 70006, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 048
    Hagerstown, Maryland 21742, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 047
    Watertown, Massachusetts 02472, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 050
    Chesterfield, Michigan 48047, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 049
    Flint, Michigan 48504, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 058
    Omaha, Nebraska 68114, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 057
    Omaha, Nebraska 68134, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 059
    Williamsville, New York 14221, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 082
    Asheboro, North Carolina 27203, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 054
    Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 088
    Davidson, North Carolina 28036, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 051
    Flat Rock, North Carolina 28731, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 052
    Greensboro, North Carolina 27403, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 055
    Greensboro, North Carolina 27410, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 053
    Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27103, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 056
    Fargo, North Dakota 58103, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 062
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45219, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 061
    Columbus, Ohio 43213, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 060
    Mentor, Ohio 44060, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 087
    Wadsworth, Ohio 44281, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 064
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 063
    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 065
    Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 066
    Medford, Oregon 97504, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 067
    Levittown, Pennsylvania 19056, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 080
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 068
    Cumberland, Rhode Island 02864, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 070
    Charleston, South Carolina 29406, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 083
    Richardson, Texas 75080, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 074
    San Antonio, Texas 78209, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 073
    San Antonio, Texas 78215, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 071
    San Antonio, Texas 78229, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 075
    Logan, Utah 84341, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 084
    Ogden, Utah 84341, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 076
    West Jordan, Utah 84088, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 078
    Christiansburg, Virginia 24073, United States
  • Forest Investigative Site 079
    Bellevue, Washington 98007, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Brenner DM, Argoff CE, Fox SM, Bochenek W, D'Astoli P, Blakesley RE, Reasner DS, O'Dea CR, Cash BD. Efficacy and safety of linaclotide for opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain syndromes from a phase 2 randomized study. Pain. 2020 May;161(5):1027-1036. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001754. PubMed 32310620 ↗
10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 8, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02270983
Lead sponsor
Forest Laboratories
Collaborators
Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 22, 2014
Start date
Oct 31, 2014
Primary completion
Aug 31, 2015
Completion
Oct 31, 2015
Results posted
Apr 8, 2019
Last update
Apr 8, 2019

Study contacts

Patricia D'Astoli, RN
study director · Forest Laboratories, LLC, an Allergan Affiliate

Oversight

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

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2019. 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.

Start the discussion