ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03981822CARE-1Updated Nov 27, 2024Results posted

A Placebo-Controlled Study Using VP-102 in the Treatment of External Genital Warts

A Phase 2 interventional study of VP-102 and applicator and Placebo in Condylomata Acuminata, Papillomavirus Infections and Skin Diseases, Viral, sponsored by Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc.. Completed at 4 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-11-27.

Sponsored by Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. · Phase 2, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
105
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a Phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine the dose regimen, safety, tolerability, and efficacy of VP-102 in subjects with External Genital Warts (EGW). This study is divided into two parts (Part A and Part B). Increasing durations of skin exposure to study drug (VP-102 or placebo) will be evaluated in three treatment groups prior to progressing to enrollment in Part B. Part A \& B will enroll a approximately 108 subjects completing 4 treatment applications every 21 days and continuing with follow-up assessments at Day 84, 112 and 147.

Read the detailed description

This study is to determine the Dose Regimen, Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of VP-102 in Subjects with External Genital Warts. It is divided into two parts (Part A and Part B). The aim of Part A is to determine the two best treatment regimens for evaluation of safety and efficacy in Part B.In Part A, Study drug (VP-102 or placebo) will be administered once every 21 days for up to four applications. Enrollment will begin in Group 1, then proceed into Group 2, and lastly into Group 3. A safety review will be conducted to determine whether enrollment can be initiated into the next Group. An additional blinded safety review will be performed after all six subjects in Group 3 have completed the 48-hour Visit, in order to support dose selection for Part B (Safety and Efficacy). Part B of the study will begin enrollment only after the Sponsor has selected the two dose regimens from Part A. The study will remain blinded until completion of both parts of the study.

In Part A, up to 18 subjects will be randomized to VP-102 or placebo treatment with three different regimens. When Part B is open an additional \~90 subjects will be enrolled and randomized to VP-102 or placebo with two treatment regimens. Two of the treatment arms will be VP-102 Regimen 1 and VP-102 Regimen 2. The other two treatment arms will be placebo (Placebo Regimen 1 and Placebo Regimen 2), with corresponding durations of skin exposure matching those selected for VP-102 Regimen 1 and Regimen 2. As an example, if the regimens selected from Part A are the 2-hour and 6-hour applications of VP-102, then VP-102 Regimen 1 would be VP-102 treatment for 2-hours and VP-102 Regimen 2 would be VP-102 treatment for 6-hours. Likewise, Placebo Regimen 1 would be placebo treatment for 2 hours and Placebo Regimen 2 would be placebo treatment for 6-hours. Randomization of the four treatment arms (VP-102 Regimen 1:VP-102 Regimen 2:Placebo Regimen 1:Placebo Regimen 2) will be 3:3:2:2. In both Regimen 1 and Regimen 2, study drug will be administered to EGW once every 21 days for up to four applications. Subjects will be asked to remove the study drug at the designated time selected from the dose regimen findings in Part A of the study. Treatment will continue with a minimum of every 21 days, until complete clearance or a maximum of four treatment sessions. Safety assessments including recording of local skin reactions are conducted at each treatment visit and at follow up visits Day 84, 112, and 147.

02

Conditions studied

  • Condylomata Acuminata
  • Papillomavirus Infections
  • Skin Diseases, Viral
  • Skin Diseases, Infectious
  • Skin Diseases
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Viral
  • Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  • Warts

Keywords

  • Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
  • Genital Warts
  • Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)
  • Viral Disease
03

In context

Condylomata Acuminata

116 studies on the registry are indexed under Condylomata Acuminata; 11 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 105 is below the median of 158 across 95 interventional studies indexed under Condylomata Acuminata.

Browse Condylomata Acuminata studies →

Lead sponsor

Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. is the lead sponsor of 10 studies on the registry; 3 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

Eligibility criteria

Key Inclusion Criteria:

  • Be healthy, immunocompetent males or females ≥ 18 years of age
  • Present with ≥ 2 and ≤ 30 external genital and/or perianal warts in ≥ 1 of the following anatomic areas:

    • In both sexes: medial thigh (except inguinal fold); supra-pubic, perineal, and perianal areas
    • In men: over the glans penis (excluding urethral meatus), penis shaft, scrotum, and foreskin
    • In women: vulva (excluding labia minora and mucosal surfaces)
  • Have warts present for ≥ 4 weeks at the baseline visit
  • Have warts that are ≤ 8 mm in diameter each

Key Exclusion Criteria:

  • Have a wart within the allowed treatment area > 8 mm in diameter or with an eroded or ulcerated surface, in the Investigator's opinion
  • Have an unclear diagnosis of condyloma
  • Have any wart types other than genital warts (e.g., common or plantar warts) that require treatment during the study period
  • Have active genital herpes eruption, or had active genital herpes lesions within 4 weeks before enrollment
  • Have a history of neoplasia or other HPV-associated within the last 5 years
  • Are systemically
  • Are sexually active or may become sexually active and are unwilling to practice responsible methods
  • Are pregnant or breastfeeding
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(3)

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.

Cancer (malignancy)

Malignancy means cancer. Criteria about another or earlier malignancy ask whether you have had a different cancer, usually within a set number of years.

Some are commonly allowed, such as treated skin cancers other than melanoma and early cancers removed completely — check the exceptions this study lists.

Immunosuppression

A weakened immune system. It can come from an illness, such as HIV or some blood cancers, or from medicines that turn the immune system down, for example after an organ transplant or for an autoimmune disease; steroids at higher doses count.

Read whether the line is about a condition or about medicines, and which medicines and doses it means.

Contraception

Ways of preventing pregnancy. “Highly effective” methods fail less than 1% of the time a year when used correctly — for example an IUD or an implant.

Criteria usually say which methods count and how long to keep using them after the last dose, sometimes for male participants too. Some studies accept a partner’s vasectomy if it was confirmed successful and that person is the participant’s only sexual partner.

05

Study design

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

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Part A: VP-102 2 hour-Active

    For part A, VP-102 will be applied for 2 hours and removed. If selected as a dose regimen for Part B VP-102 will be applied for 2 hours and removed.In both parts, VP-102 is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: VP-102 and applicator

  • Active comparator
    Part A: VP-102 6-hour Active

    For part A, VP-102 will be applied for 6 hours and removed. If selected as a dose regimen for Part B VP-102 will be applied for 6 hours and removed. In both parts, VP-102 is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: VP-102 and applicator

  • Active comparator
    Part A: VP-102 24-hour Active

    For part A, VP-102 will be applied for 24 hours and removed. If selected as a dose regimen for Part B, VP-102 will be applied for 24 hours and removed. In both parts, VP-102 is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: VP-102 and applicator

  • Placebo comparator
    Part A: Placebo

    For part A, VP-102 will be applied for 2-,6- or 24- hours and removed. Placebo is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: Placebo

  • Active comparator
    Part B & A: VP-102 6 hour-Active

    Part B, VP-102 will be applied for 6 hours and removed. VP-102 is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: VP-102 and applicator

  • Placebo comparator
    Part B & A: 6-hour-Placebo

    Part B, Placebo will be applied for 6 hours and removed. VP-102 is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: Placebo

  • Active comparator
    Part B & A: VP-102 24-hour Active

    For part A, VP-102 will be applied for 24 hours and removed. If 24 hours is selected as a dose regimen for Part B, VP-102 will be applied for 24 hours and removed. VP-102 is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: VP-102 and applicator

  • Placebo comparator
    Part B & A: 24-hour-Placebo

    Part B, VP-Placebo will be applied for 24 hours and removed. VP-102 is applied every 21 days for 4 treatments.

    Combination Product: Placebo

Interventions

  • Combination productVP-102 and applicator

    In part A, VP-102 will be applied for either 2, 6 or 24 hours with each regimen compared to placebo. For part B, 2 of the regimens from part A will be chosen for Part B with each compared to Placebo. Only 4 arms are actually being studied.

    Also known as: VP-102 (cantharidin) 0.7% w/v topical solution

  • Combination productPlacebo

    The placebo single-use applicator contains the same formulation as the VP-102 applicator but does not contain the active pharmaceutical ingredient cantharidin

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting Complete Clearance of All Treatable Warts at the Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit.

    Proportion of subjects exhibiting complete clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at the Study Day 84 EOT Visit.

    Time frame: Compares baseline wart count to Day 84, end of treatment.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting Complete Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Proportion of subjects exhibiting complete clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

    Time frame: Clearance compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.

  2. Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting 90% Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Proportion of subjects exhibiting 90% clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

    Time frame: Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.

  3. Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting 75% Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Proportion of subjects exhibiting 75% clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

    Time frame: Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2, (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.

  4. Change From Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Change from baseline in the number of treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS). Number of warts present were recorded at each treatment visit as well as follow-up visits. For each post baseline treatment visit, the change in number of warts from baseline was calculated.

    Time frame: Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.

  5. Percent Change From Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Percent Change from Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

    Time frame: Percent change from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.

Other outcomes

  1. Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting Reduction of ≥ 1 Treatable Wart From Baseline at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Proportion of subjects exhibiting reduction of ≥ 1 treatable wart from baseline at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

    Time frame: Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.

  2. Proportion of Subjects Who Are Clear at the Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit and Remain Clear at the Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (End of Study)

    Proportion of subjects who are clear at all three study visits, Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit and remain clear at the Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (End of Study).

    Time frame: Complete clearance compared from Day 84 to follow-up days 112 and 147.

  3. Change From Baseline in Total Wart Area (Sum of Individual Warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Change from baseline in total wart area (sum of individual warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

    Time frame: Baseline to Study Day 84, Follow-up Visits at Days 112 and 147 (EOS)

  4. Percent Change From Baseline in the Total Wart Area (Sum of Individual Warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

    Percent Change from baseline in the total wart area (sum of individual warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

    Time frame: Baseline to Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

07

Results

Posted Sep 22, 2021
Limitations and caveats
Due to logistical and/or scheduling difficulties related to the SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus-19; COVID-19) pandemic during the course of the study, six subjects discontinued due to COVID-19 related reasons.

Participant flow

2 groups from Part A were to be included in Part B based on Part A analysis.

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestonePart A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: VP-102 6-hour GroupPart A: VP-102 24-hour GroupPart A: PlaceboPart B: VP-102 6-hourPart B: Placebo 6-hourPart B: VP-102 24-hourPart B: Placebo 24-hour
Started555325232217
Completed534317171612
Not completed02108665
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up01106442
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject01000102
Withdrew: Covid-19 related00002121

Outcome measures

PrimaryProportion of Subjects Exhibiting Complete Clearance of All Treatable Warts at the Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit.

Proportion of subjects exhibiting complete clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at the Study Day 84 EOT Visit.

Time frame:
Compares baseline wart count to Day 84, end of treatment.
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting Complete Clearance of All Treatable Warts at the Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit.
ParticipantsPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Yes11190
No19231818
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0048 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0075 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
SecondaryProportion of Subjects Exhibiting Complete Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Proportion of subjects exhibiting complete clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

Time frame:
Clearance compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting Complete Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
ParticipantsPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Treatment Visit 2: Yes, Complete Clearance1040
Treatment Visit 3: Yes, Complete Clearance4082
Treatment Visit 4: Yes, Complete Clearance6070
Study Day 84 EOT: Yes, Complete Clearance11190
F/U Visit Day 112: Yes, Complete Clearance9282
F/U Visit Day 147: Yes, Complete Clearance6382
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.3642 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0967 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0648 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1357 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0190 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0184 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0048 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0075 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0539 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1638 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.4766 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1588 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
SecondaryProportion of Subjects Exhibiting 90% Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Proportion of subjects exhibiting 90% clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

Time frame:
Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting 90% Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
ParticipantsPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Treatment Visit 2: Incidence of >=90% Clearance: YES1040
Treatment Visit 3: Incidence of >=90% Clearance: YES5082
Treatment Visit 4: Incidence of >=90% Clearance: YES7070
Study Day 84 EOT: Incidence of >=90% Clearance: YES142110
F/U Visit Day 112: Incidence of >=90% Clearance: YES11292
F/U Visit Day 147: Incidence of >=90% Clearance: YES9392
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.3642 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender. Part B summary is pooled with its respective treatments from Part A.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0356P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0118P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0026 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0174P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1311P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0967P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1357P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0184P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0024P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1034P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1029P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
SecondaryProportion of Subjects Exhibiting 75% Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Proportion of subjects exhibiting 75% clearance of all treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

Time frame:
Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2, (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting 75% Clearance of All Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
ParticipantsPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Treatment Visit 2: Incidence of >=75% Clearance: YES5061
Treatment Visit 3: Incidence of >=75% Clearance: YES80142
Treatment Visit 4: Incidence of >=75% Clearance: YES112121
Study Day 84 EOT: Incidence of >=75% Clearance: YES152152
F/U Visit Day 112: Incidence of >=75% Clearance: YES133133
F/U Visit Day 147: Incidence of >=75% Clearance: YES104132
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0356P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1477P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0062P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0046P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0177P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0054P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0013P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0034P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0156P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0367P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.1746P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0123P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Change from baseline in the number of treatable warts (baseline and new) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS). Number of warts present were recorded at each treatment visit as well as follow-up visits. For each post baseline treatment visit, the change in number of warts from baseline was calculated.

Time frame:
Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.
Reported as:
Mean · Warts
Change From Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
WartsPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Treatment Visit 2-4.0 ± 4.95-0.3 ± 1.11-5.3 ± 4.250.6 ± 30.07
Treatment Visit 3-4.4 ± 5.80-1.1 ± 3.69-6.3 ± 5.45-0.5 ± 5.01
Treatment Visit 4-5.2 ± 4.72-0.9 ± 3.98-7.1 ± 5.090.5 ± 5.17
Study Day 84 EOT Visit-6.1 ± 5.24-1.1 ± 4.92-7.4 ± 6.370.1 ± 5.12
Follow up Day 112-5.3 ± 5.21-1.1 ± 5.33-8.1 ± 5.54-0.3 ± 4.39
Follow-up Visit Day 147 EOS-5.0 ± 7.63-1.2 ± 5.49-7.9 ± 5.46-0.1 ± 4.66
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0021 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -3.96 · 95% CI -5.41 to -1.24MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, Tx by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0150 · Ls mean difference: -4.72 · 95% CI -5.95 to -0.66MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0011 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -5.31 · 95% CI -6.54 to -1.69MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0007 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -6.50 · 95% CI -8.25 to -2.32MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0012 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -6.15 · 95% CI -7.50 to -1.91MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0349 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -5.02 · 95% CI -6.78 to -0.26MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM mode) · Ls mean difference: -4.76 · 95% CI -7.47 to -2.85MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0005 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -6.00 · 95% CI -8.37 to -2.43MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Analysis based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -6.64 · 95% CI -9.65 to -4.12MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0004 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -6.49 · 95% CI -9.67 to -2.92MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (Analysis based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -6.96 · 95% CI -9.89 to -3.57MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0005 (Analysis based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -6.99 · 95% CI -10.20 to -2.94MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
SecondaryPercent Change From Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Percent Change from Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

Time frame:
Percent change from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.
Reported as:
Mean · Wart percentage change from Baseline
Percent Change From Baseline in the Number of Treatable Warts (Baseline and New) at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
Wart percentage change from BaselinePart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Treatment Visit 2-41.4 ± 32.38-6.2 ± 13.14-58.5 ± 26.69-2.6 ± 30.07
Treatment Visit 3-49.0 ± 37.18-8.9 ± 44.46-69.3 ± 34.03-17.8 ± 49.79
Treatment Visit 4-65.8 ± 30.69-5.1 ± 66.26-77.3 ± 26.870.6 ± 41.94
Study Day 84 End of Treatment Visit-79.7 ± 34.27-1.6 ± 78.34-77.1 ± 38.66-5.5 ± 47.98
Follow up Day 112-68.2 ± 43.201.9 ± 91.11-79.2 ± 28.36-14.2 ± 49.60
Follow up Visit Day 147 End of Study-42.5 ± 111.83-6.0 ± 86.56-79.6 ± 25.01-12.9 ± 50.49
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -41.47 · 95% CI -51.31 to -20.87MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0004 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -50.95 · 95% CI -66.18 to -19.56MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -66.21 · 95% CI -88.15 to -35.87MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -79.37 · 95% CI -111.44 to -49.77MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -69.79 · 95% CI -103.17 to -35.25MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.1033 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -41.22 · 95% CI -90.61 to 8.56MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -58.43 · 95% CI -73.26 to -39.39MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -69.86 · 95% CI -81.61 to -28.80MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = <0.0001 (P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.) · Ls mean difference: -76.55 · 95% CI -107.19 to -45.61MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0003 (P-value is based on MMRM model with gender, treatment, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors.) · Ls mean difference: -74.29 · 95% CI -102.96 to -31.55MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0004 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -77.10 · 95% CI -110.32 to -32.78MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0178 (P-value is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -77.52 · 95% CI -120.82 to -11.88MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart count as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
Other pre-specifiedProportion of Subjects Exhibiting Reduction of ≥ 1 Treatable Wart From Baseline at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Proportion of subjects exhibiting reduction of ≥ 1 treatable wart from baseline at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

Time frame:
Compared from baseline to each study visit, treatment 2 (Day 21), 3 (Day 42), 4 (Day 63) and Day 84, 112 and 147.
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Proportion of Subjects Exhibiting Reduction of ≥ 1 Treatable Wart From Baseline at Treatment Visit 2, Treatment Visit 3, Treatment Visit 4, Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
ParticipantsPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Treatment Visit 2 — Yes - at least 1 wart reduction from Baseline226236
Treatment Visit 2 — No818412
Treatment Visit 3 — Yes - at least 1 wart reduction from Baseline2010217
Treatment Visit 3 — No1014611
Treatment Visit 4 — Yes - at least 1 wart reduction from Baseline2310174
Treatment Visit 4 — No7141014
Study Day 84 EOT Visit — Yes - at least 1 wart reduction from Baseline199184
Study Day 84 EOT Visit — No1115914
F/U Visit Day 112 — Yes - at least 1 wart reduction from Baseline1710185
F/U Visit Day 112 — No1314913
F/U Visit Day 147 EOS — Yes - at least 1 wart reduction from Baseline138195
F/U Visit Day 147 EOS — No1716813
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0004 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0005 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0698 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0100 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0101 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0077 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0640 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0045 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.2840 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0132 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.4668 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0064 (P-value is based on the CMH test stratified by gender.)
Other pre-specifiedProportion of Subjects Who Are Clear at the Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit and Remain Clear at the Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (End of Study)

Proportion of subjects who are clear at all three study visits, Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit and remain clear at the Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (End of Study).

Time frame:
Complete clearance compared from Day 84 to follow-up days 112 and 147.
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Proportion of Subjects Who Are Clear at the Study Day 84 (End of Treatment) Visit and Remain Clear at the Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (End of Study)
ParticipantsPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Yes5070
No25242018
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mantel Haenszel · p = 0.0364Stratified by gender
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel · p = 0.0215Stratified by gender
Other pre-specifiedChange From Baseline in Total Wart Area (Sum of Individual Warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Change from baseline in total wart area (sum of individual warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

Time frame:
Baseline to Study Day 84, Follow-up Visits at Days 112 and 147 (EOS)
Reported as:
Mean · mm^2
Change From Baseline in Total Wart Area (Sum of Individual Warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
mm^2Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Study Day 84 (EOT)-52.60 ± 67.067-23.64 ± 59.722-72.87 ± 91.6591.60 ± 33.796
Follow-up Day 112-79.43 ± 99.679-20.35 ± 53.289-82.79 ± 71.7501.40 ± 39.963
Follow-up Visit Day 147 (EOS)-59.28 ± 100.988-6.02 ± 36.929-68.78 ± 68.7102.21 ± 45.035
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.1222 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -59.63 · 95% CI -76.10 to 9.23MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0403 (Analysis based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -69.51 · 95% CI -81.30 to -1.90MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0863 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -58.88 · 95% CI -77.79 to 5.33MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0428 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -62.13 · 95% CI -100.76 to -1.73MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0084 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -71.93 · 95% CI -110.46 to -17.00MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0273 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -63.11 · 95% CI -103.08 to -6.35MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
Other pre-specifiedPercent Change From Baseline in the Total Wart Area (Sum of Individual Warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)

Percent Change from baseline in the total wart area (sum of individual warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS).

Time frame:
Baseline to Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
Reported as:
Mean · Change from baseline in % of wart area
Percent Change From Baseline in the Total Wart Area (Sum of Individual Warts) at Study Day 84 (EOT), and Follow-up Visits on Study Day 112 and Study Day 147 (EOS)
Change from baseline in % of wart areaPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour
Study Day 84 (EOT)-46.0 ± 52.77-22.3 ± 57.92-64.2 ± 55.78-7.3 ± 93.42
Follow-up Day 112-48.2 ± 54.67-21.5 ± 64.54-76.4 ± 12.3313.8 ± 129.61
Follow-up Day 147 (EOS)-45.8 ± 71.37-11.7 ± 52.52-69.3 ± 16.4419.9 ± 138.49
Statistical analysis
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.3083 · Ls mean difference: -44.65 · 95% CI -69.96 to 22.47MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.1686 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -55.80 · 95% CI -86.93 to 15.56MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.2384 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -38.06 · 95% CI -87.04 to 22.10MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0603 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -61.96 · 95% CI -103.37 to 2.27MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0109 (Analysis is based on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -74.87 · 95% CI -138.71 to -18.83MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.
  • Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour vs Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.0467 (Analysis is base on MMRM model) · Ls mean difference: -66.62 · 95% CI -127.64 to -0.99MMRM model with gender, Tx, visit, treatment by visit interaction, and baseline wart area as factors. An unstructured covariance model was used.

Adverse events

Collected over Adverse Events (AEs) were collected following the first application of study drug through Study Day 147.. Non-serious events are listed at a 5% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Part B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hour0/29 (0%)1/29 (3.4%)29/29 (100%)
Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hour0/22 (0%)1/22 (4.5%)15/22 (68.2%)
Part B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hour0/28 (0%)0/28 (0%)28/28 (100%)
Part B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hour0/20 (0%)1/20 (5%)9/20 (45%)
Part A: VP-102 2-hour0/5 (0%)0/5 (0%)5/5 (100%)
Part A: Placebo 2-hour0/1 (0%)0/1 (0%)0/1 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hourPart A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: Placebo 2-hour
PneumoniaInfections and infestations0/290/220/281/200/50/1
Bipolar disorderPsychiatric disorders0/291/220/280/200/50/1
Musculoskeletal chest painMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders1/290/220/280/200/50/1
Most frequent other events
Showing 10 of 28
Most frequent other events
EventPart B Pooled With Part A: VP-102 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 6-hourPart B Pooled With Part A VP-102 24-hourPart B Pooled With Part A: Placebo 24-hourPart A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: Placebo 2-hour
Application site vesiclesGeneral disorders25/290/2226/281/204/50/1
Application site painGeneral disorders20/293/2219/284/204/50/1
Application site discolourationGeneral disorders7/294/226/280/204/50/1
Application site erosionGeneral disorders6/290/227/280/204/50/1
Application site erythemaGeneral disorders14/293/2219/281/202/50/1
Application site oedemaGeneral disorders3/291/227/281/203/50/1
Application site scabGeneral disorders13/291/2214/280/201/50/1
Application site pruritusGeneral disorders14/295/2210/281/201/50/1
Application site drynessGeneral disorders7/292/226/281/201/50/1
Application site exfoliationGeneral disorders3/292/225/280/201/50/1

Baseline characteristics

ITT population

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Part A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: VP-102 6-hourPart A: VP-102 24-hourPart A: PlaceboPart B: VP-102 6-hourPart B: 6-hour-PlaceboPart B: VP-102 24-hourPart B: 24-hour-PlaceboTotal
Mean34.40 ± 9.91543.00 ± 8.24633.80 ± 5.26332.00 ± 3.60638.12 ± 10.13835.87 ± 7.97334.45 ± 7.52633.88 ± 6.47035.85 ± 8.260
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Part A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: VP-102 6-hourPart A: VP-102 24-hourPart A: PlaceboPart B: VP-102 6-hourPart B: 6-hour-PlaceboPart B: VP-102 24-hourPart B: 24-hour-PlaceboTotal
Female4320101010746
Male12331513121059
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Part A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: VP-102 6-hourPart A: VP-102 24-hourPart A: PlaceboPart B: VP-102 6-hourPart B: 6-hour-PlaceboPart B: VP-102 24-hourPart B: 24-hour-PlaceboTotal
Hispanic or Latino1000612515
Not Hispanic or Latino45531922201290
Unknown or Not Reported000000000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Part A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: VP-102 6-hourPart A: VP-102 24-hourPart A: PlaceboPart B: VP-102 6-hourPart B: 6-hour-PlaceboPart B: VP-102 24-hourPart B: 24-hour-PlaceboTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000001001
Asian000000000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000000000
Black or African American2010681624
White35331912211177
More than one race000000000
Unknown or Not Reported001002003
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(participants)Part A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: VP-102 6-hourPart A: VP-102 24-hourPart A: PlaceboPart B: VP-102 6-hourPart B: 6-hour-PlaceboPart B: VP-102 24-hourPart B: 24-hour-PlaceboTotal
United States555325232217105
Baseline number of treatable external genital warts
Baseline number of treatable external genital warts(genital warts)Part A: VP-102 2-hourPart A: VP-102 6-hourPart A: VP-102 24-hourPart A: PlaceboPart B: VP-102 6-hourPart B: 6-hour-PlaceboPart B: VP-102 24-hourPart B: 24-hour-PlaceboTotal
Mean7 ± 5.5689.60 ± 12.01213.00 ± 8.27611.67 ± 12.4238.28 ± 6.3805.87 ± 3.6848.68 ± 5.4897.76 ± 6.8978.08 ± 6.395
08

Study locations

4 sites
  • The Indiana Clinical Trials Center,PC
    Plainfield, Indiana 46168, United States
  • DelRicht Research
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816, United States
  • Clarkston Skin Research
    Clarkston, Michigan 48346, United States
  • DelRicht Research
    Tulsa, Oklahoma 74133, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Guenthner S, McFalda W, Tate M, Eads K, Rieger J, Glover DK, Willson C, Rumney P, Rosen T, Andres J, Olivadoti M. Phase II, Double-Blind, Vehicle-Controlled Study to Determine the Cantharidin Dose Regimen, Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of VP-102 in Subjects with External Genital Warts. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2021 Nov;22(6):867-875. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00635-2. Epub 2021 Sep 13. PubMed 34515985 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 27, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03981822
Lead sponsor
Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Collaborators
Instat Consulting, Inc., Paidion Research, Inc., BioClinica, Inc.
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 11, 2019
Start date
Jun 25, 2019
Primary completion
May 21, 2020
Completion
Jul 8, 2020
Results posted
Sep 22, 2021
Last update
Nov 27, 2024

Study contacts

Scott Guenthner, MD
principal investigator · The Indiana Clinical Trials Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 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.

Start the discussion