Phlogenzym® in the Treatment of a Monoarticular
Gonarthritis. (MU-695 414)
Efficacy and Tolerance.
Randomized double-blind, clinical study phase III with parallel groups
vs. diclofenac according to the guidelines of good clinical practice
(GCP).
Randomised double-blind,
clinical study phase III with parallel groups vs. diclofenac
according to the guidelines of good clinical practice (GCP).
Integrated biometric-medical report according to ICH E3 guidelines.
Primary Investigator: Univ.-Doc. Franz Singer, M.D.
Rehabilitation Center Tiergartenstrasse 3 c, A-2381 Laab im Walde,
Austria
Evaluation by: MUCOS Pharma GmbH & Co, Clinical Research
Dpt., Malvenweg 2, D-82538 Geretsried, Germany
Report by: PharmaScript, Primelweg 2, D-82538 Geretsried,
Germany
Synopsis
|
Name of
Sponsor/Company: |
Individual Study Table
Referring to Part at the Dossier |
(For National
Authority Use Only) |
|
|
Name of Finished
Product: |
Volume: |
|
|
|
Name of Active
Ingredient(s): |
Page: |
|
|
|
Title of Study: |
|||
|
Investigator(s): |
|||
|
Study centre(s): |
|||
|
Publication
(reference/s): |
|||
|
Studied period
(mo/years): 17 months |
Phase of development: |
||
|
Objectives: |
|||
|
Methodology: |
|||
|
Number of patients
(planned and analysed): |
|||
|
Diagnosis and main
criteria for inclusion: |
|||
|
Test product, dose and
mode of administration, batch number: |
|||
|
Duration of treatment: |
|||
|
Reference therapy,
dose and mode of administration, batch number. |
|||
|
Name of
Sponsor/Company: |
Individual Study Table
Referring to Part at the Dossier |
(For National
Authority Use Only) |
|
Name of Finished
Product: |
Volume: |
|
|
Name of Active
Ingredient(s): |
Page: |
|
|
Criteria for
evaluation |
||
|
Statistical methods: |
||
|
SUMMARY - CONCLUSIONS |
||
Date of the report: July 17th, 1997
1. Summary
A double-blind clinical study was performed to prove efficacy
and tolerance of Phlogenzym® for equivalence to the
non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac in monoarticular
gonarthritis.
68 patients were planned, 63 patients with monoarticular
gonarthritis were included and randomised into two groups: 31
patients received the enzyme preparation Phlogenzym®
(enzyme group), and 32 patients diclofenac (diclofenac group). The
data of all patients was evaluable.
The principal investigator of this center was Univ.-Doz. Franz
Singer, M.D., rehabilitation center, Tiergartenstrasse 3 c, A-2381
Laab im Walde, Austria.
To make the compared drugs suitable for the double blind design, the
study material had to be prepared following the "double dummy"
method: all patients received 2 tablets t.i.d. (i.e. 6 tablets per
day) of the "enzyme tablets" and in the 1s week 1 tablet t.i.d.
(i.e. 3 tablets per day) diclofenac, in the 2nd and 3rd week 1
tablet b.i.d. (i.e. 2 tablets per day). In one group (enzyme group)
the patients received active enzyme and placebo diclofenac tablets,
in the other group enzyme placebos and active diclofenac.
At baseline the patients were comparable with regard to age, sex,
weight, height and duration of complaints (p > 0.05, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-U-test).
As main endpoints for statistical evaluation on equivalence of both
drugs the Lesquesne index and the sum score of the symptoms (rest
pain, pain on movement, restricted movement) by the patients using
the "visual analog scale" (Huskisson score) 4 weeks after end of
therapy was defined.
As secondary criteria the self judgement by the patients, the result
of the therapy, the motility of the knee without pain, the
circumference (cm) of the knee and the global judgements by the
physician and by the patients were evaluated descriptively.
The main endpoints Lesquesne index and sum score have proven for at
least equivalence of Phlogenzym® to diclofenac: Lesquesne
index - MannWhitney statistics, 95% CI LB = 0.5780; sum score - 95%
CI LB = 0.5363 Each value is above 0.44, the limit for equivalence.
The following test on difference failed to prove statistically for
superiority of Phlogenzym, but a distinct tendency was seen: MW
statistics 0.6933; LB 95% = 0.5454 (< 0.56) for lesquesne index; MW
statistics 0.6528; LB 95% = 0.5032 (< 0.56) for sum score.
The secondary criteria showed no significant differences (p > 0.05).
The pain on movement improved more in the enzyme group (p = 0.0118).
The efficacy of the drug was judged in the enzyme group by the
physician as 2.2 ("good") and by the patients as 2.1 ("good"). In
the diclofenac group the physician judged the efficacy of the drug
as 2.3 ("good" to "moderate") and the patients as 2.4 ("good" to
"moderate").
The tolerance of the drugs was judged by the physician and by the
patients in the enzyme group as 1.3 ("very good" to "good"), and in
the diclofenac group as 1.4 ("very good" to "good") by the physician
and as 1.3 ("very good" to "good") by the patients.
Adverse events were documented in 15 patients in the enzyme group
and in 18 patients in the diclofenac group. They started on average
after 7.7 days in the enzyme group and after 13.1 days in the
diclofenac group. The duration was on average 7.1 days in the enzyme
group and 3.7 days in the diclofenac group. They were judged as
"mild" to "moderate". In the enzyme group they were without sequelae
and in the diclofenac group the adverse events were in 16 patients
without sequelae, in two patients with mild sequelae and in two
patients the sequelae were in need of ambulatory treatment.