CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Clinical Studies
Introduction
Clinical data supporting the safety and effectiveness of
Solesta are available from three clinical studies: 1) a pivotal, prospective,
multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled double-blind study of 206 patients
conducted under an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE; Pivotal study), 2) a
prospective, multicenter, open-label study of 115 patients conducted outside
the United States (Open-Label study), and 3) a single center study of 34
patients conducted at one site in Sweden (Proof-of-Concept study). The Pivotal
study also included a cross-over option for patients initially randomized to
Sham. The majority of patients (over 84%) in all three studies were female.
Table 1 provides an overview of the design of the three
studies.
Table 1: Comparison of the three clinical studies
supporting safety and effectiveness of Solesta
|
Pivotal study |
Open-Label study |
Proof-of-Concept study |
Study Design |
Randomized double-blind comparative study of Solesta versus Sham in 2:I ratio |
Open study |
Open study |
Primary Efficacy Endpoints |
Effectiveness: (1) Superiority in proportion Responder50 compared with Sham at 6 months
(2) Durability of response based on proportion responders at 12 months
Durability of response was also evaluated up to 36 months following last injection |
Effectiveness: Proportion Responder50 at 12 months Durability of response was also evaluated up to 24 months following last injection |
Effectiveness: Proportion Responder50 at 12 and 24 months |
Secondary EfficacyVariables |
Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL) Scale |
FIQL |
SF-36 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 |
Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence Score (CCFIS) |
CCFIS |
Miller Score |
Fecal Incontinence (FI) free days |
FI free days |
FI free days |
Fecal Incontinence (FI) episodes, controlled bowel emptying, medications |
FI episodes, controlled bowel emptying, medications |
FI episodes, global evaluation by patient, patient subjective judgment of treatment effect |
Investigational Centers |
8 centers in US and 5 centers in Europe |
I4 centers in Europe and I center in Canada |
1 center in Sweden |
Sample Size |
I36 patients randomized to Solesta, and 70 patients randomized to Sham |
115 patients |
34 patients |
Inclusion Criteria |
Age I8-75 years |
Age I8-80 years |
Age I8-80 years |
≥ 4 FI episodes over I4 days in patient diary |
≥ 4 FI episodes over 28 days in patient diary |
At least one FI episode weekly |
CCFIS ≥ I0 |
CCFIS ≥ 5 |
Miller score ≥ 6 |
Solid or liquid FI episodes |
Solid or liquid FI episodes |
Solid or liquid FI episodes |
Failed conservative treatment |
Failed conservative treatment |
|
Exclusion Criteria |
Complete external sphincter disruption, Significant mucosal prolapse |
Complete external sphincter disruption, Significant mucosal prolapse |
Complete external sphincter disruption, Significant mucosal prolapse |
Retreatment Criteria |
Incontinent at one month after initial treatment and CCFIS ≥ 10 |
Incontinent at one month after initial treatment |
Some subjective improvement but less than 50 % reduction in FI episodes |
Treatment Information
Pre-operative Bowel Preparation
Pre-treatment evacuation of the rectum was done with an
enema in the majority of the patients in all 3 studies. A small number of
patients received topical antiseptic cleansing at the discretion of the
treating physician. Prophylactic antibiotics were administered to individual patients
in the Pivotal study at the discretion of the treating investigator and only 15
patients at 3 sites received prophylactic antibiotics in this study. No
patients in the Open-Label study received prophylactic antibiotics.
Treatment Procedure
The Solesta injection procedure was the same in all 3
studies. Treatment was administered in an out-patient setting without
anesthesia. Four equally spaced injections were administered through an
anoscope and placed about 5 mm proximal to the dentate line. Treatment volume
was generally 4 x 1 mL per treatment session. A single re-treatment procedure
was offered to patients with persistent fecal incontinence after approximately  1
month. If a patient received retreatment, the maximum total treatment dose was
8 mL (4 mL per treatment x 2 treatments). In the Pivotal study, the sham
injection procedure consisted of using 4 separate syringes to pierce the
mucosa. The syringes were held in place for the same amount of time as Solesta
injection: however, nothing was injected.
The Pivotal Study is the primary data set that
demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of Solesta. The Open-Label and
Proof-of-Concept studies provide supporting evidence of safety and
effectiveness.
Patient Demographics
Both of the multicenter studies enrolled patients with a broad
range of age and body mass index. The majority of patients enrolled in both studies
were females. Over 10% of patients enrolled in the Pivotal study were
African-Americans, Hispanics or Asians. The causes of FI in both studies were
attributed mainly to obstetric cause, neurogenic cause, and iatrogenic cause
based on available medical history.
Table 2 provides an overview of the patient demographics
in the Pivotal study. The Open-Label study and the Proof-of-Concept study enrolled
patients with similar demographics.
Table 2: Demographics in the Pivotal Study
Subject Demographics |
|
Pivotal study
(n=206) |
Female |
n (%) |
183 (88.8) |
Age, years |
Mean (range) |
60.1 (29.4-76.0) |
Body Mass Index (BMI), kg/m² |
Mean (range) |
27.1 (17.2-44.8) |
Caucasian origin |
n (%) |
181 (87.9) |
Duration of symptoms over 5 years |
n (%) |
106 (51.7) |
Obstetric cause |
n (%) |
82 (39.8) |
Neurogenic cause |
n (%) |
43 (20.9) |
Iatrogenic cause |
n (%) |
46 (22.3) |
Other cause (mostly idiopathic) |
n (%) |
35 (17.0) |
Safety Data
The safety evaluation of Solesta in the treatment of
fecal incontinence (FI) is based on the results from the Pivotal clinical
study, and is supported by the Open-Label multicenter clinical study and one
single site Proof-of-Concept study. The analysis of safety was based on the safety
cohort of all 206 patients treated in the Pivotal study with either Solesta or
Sham. During the 6-month blinded phase (n = 136 in the Solesta group and n = 70
in the Sham group), treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced by 72%
of the Solesta-treated patients and 60% of Sham-treated patients. Table 3
provides an overview of treatment-emergent adverse events during the 6-month
blinded phase.
Table 3: Overview of Adverse Events during the 6-Month
Blinded Phase of the Pivotal Study
|
Solesta
(n = 136) n (%) |
Sham
(n = 70)
n (%) |
Any treatment-emergent adverse event |
98 (72.1) |
42 (60.0) |
Severe treatment-emergent adverse events |
6 (4.4) |
1 (1.4) |
Serious treatment-emergent adverse events |
7 (5.1) |
2 (2.9) |
Treatment-emergent adverse events considered related to study treatment by the investigator (treatment-related adverse events) |
66 (48.5) |
19 (27.1) |
Serious treatment-related adverse eventsa |
2 (1.5) |
0 |
a Serious treatment-related adverse events
were one case of E. coli bacteremia and one case of rectal abscess. A third
patient experienced a serious treatment-related adverse event of rectal abscess
during the open phase. |
Safety data for Solesta are available from 359 treatments
in 197 total patients followed for up to 36 months post treatment during the blinded
and open phases of the Pivotal study (ie, the long-term population, including
136 patients who received Solesta during the blinded phase and an additional 61
patients who received Solesta during the open phase). Greater than 80% of
subjects had 2 injections with Solesta (initial treatment and re-treatment
approximately 1 month later); 113 of 136 patients (83.1%) received 2 Solesta
injections during the blinded phase and 49 of 61 patients (80.3%) received 2
Solesta injections during the open phase. At least 1 treatment-emergent adverse
event was experienced by 87% of patients in the long-term population. Severe
treatment-emergent adverse events were reported for 12% of patients. Â For the
subgroup of 61 patients who received Solesta at the start of the open phase,
treatment-emergent AEs were experienced by 85% of patients and severe
treatment-emergent adverse events were reported for 12% of patients.
In the long-term population, treatment-related adverse
events (ie, treatment-emergent adverse events considered by the investigator to
be related to Solesta injection) were experienced by 104 of 197 patients (53%)
up to 36 months after treatment. For the subgroup of 61 patients who received
Solesta at the start of the open phase, 31 of 61 (51%) had treatment-related
adverse events during follow-up. Three (3) of 197 patients (1.5%) had
treatment-related adverse events that were deemed serious by the investigators.
These serious treatment-related adverse events include: one subject with E.
coli bacteremia who presented with an ongoing urinary tract infection,
prostatic hypertrophy, and possible upper respiratory tract infection, and 2
subjects with rectal abscess. The event of E. coli bacteremia and one event of
rectal abscess occurred during the blinded phase; the other event of rectal
abscess occurred during the open phase. These serious treatment-related adverse
events resolved following treatment without sequelae within 35 days of event
onset. The times from injection to event onset and other details of the 3
serious treatment-related adverse events are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Serious Treatment-Related Adverse Events
during the Blinded or Open Phases (up to 36 months post treatment)
Event |
Treatment group |
Intensity |
Time from injection to event onset |
Event Duration |
Outcome |
Escherichia coli bacteremiaa |
Solesta treatment -blinded phase |
Moderate |
0.5 days post first injection |
35 days |
Recovered |
Rectal abscessa |
Solesta treatment -blinded phase |
Mild |
2 days post second injection |
5 days |
Recovered |
Rectal abscessb |
Solesta treatment -open phase |
Severe |
4.5 months post second injection |
5 days |
Recovered |
a These events occurred during the blinded
phase.
b This event occurred during the open phase. |
Overall, 96% of treatment-related adverse events required
no intervention or required medical or simple non-invasive interventions,
including application of local pressure, silicone ointment, water irrigation,
and warm baths. Ten (10) treatment-related adverse events required more invasive
procedures, as follows (with time from injection to event onset in
parentheses): 6 cases of perianal drainage or incision and drainage of
abscesses (2, 3, 15, 140, 1000, and 1053 days post injection, respectively), 1
case of lancing of a hemorrhoid (1 day post injection), 1 case of a Kenalog
injection in a pre-existing anal scar (255 days post injection), 1 case of
rubber band ligation of an anal prolapse (288 days post injection), and 1 case
of rectovaginal cyst removal (594 days post injection). These events requiring
intervention were considered by the investigator to be moderate or mild, with the
exception of 1 severe case (nonserious) of rectal abscess (event onset 3 days
after injection) that required drainage.
As shown in Table 5, the most frequent treatment-related
adverse events following Solesta treatment pertained to post-treatment proctalgia,
minor anal or rectal bleeding, post-treatment fever, abdominal complaints (such
as diarrhea and constipation), and events potentially related to peri-operative
infection. Most of these treatment-related adverse events were experienced soon
after injection with Solesta; the highest incidence occurred during the 48-hour
interval following the first injection. The onset of treatment-related adverse
events, such as proctalgia, were also relatively frequent from > 1 month to
2 months post first injection; this result is consistent with re-injection of
study treatment for most patients at 1 month post first injection (161 of 197
patients received a second injection at 1 month) in the Pivotal study. All of
the events shown in Table 5 resolved during follow-up with the exception of one
mild event of injection site nodule that was considered chronic/stable.
Combined with the supportive studies, a total of 346
patients received 566 treatments with Solesta. All three studies utilized
similar inclusion/exclusion criteria and all three studies used exactly the
same procedure for administering Solesta. The multi-center Open-Label study demonstrated
similar safety results as the Pivotal study. A total of 163 AEs were reported
by 71 of the 115 patients treated with Solesta in the Open-Label study. Of
these AEs, 79 AEs reported by 44 patients (38%) were assessed by the
investigators to be related to the study treatment. Thus, the incidence of
treatment-related AEs per total number of performed treatments was 51.3% (79 events/154
treatments). Similar to the Pivotal study, the 5 most frequently reported types
of treatment-related AEs were proctalgia, pyrexia, constipation, diarrhea and
injection site pain. Six (6) treatment-related AEs reported in 4 patients were
classified as serious in the study. Three (3) of these serious and
treatment-related adverse events were cases of abscess reported by 3 patients
and the remaining 3 were reported by a single patient who had a rectal prolapse
with concurrent rectal bleeding and pain. In this latter case, tissues
surrounding a Solesta bulge had prolapsed downwards in the anal canal and the
Solesta bulge was excised in surgery.
The third success criterion concerned durability of the
treatment effect and required a minimum level of proportion Responder25
( ≥ 25% improvement from baseline) for Solesta at 12 months, as defined by
a lower confidence limit of 50%. The LCL for proportion Responder25 at
12 months was 61.4%, as illustrated in Figure 2.
As an additional supporting analysis, the proportion
Responder50 at 12 months after last treatment was also calculated and it was
57.4%, similar to the results at 6 months. Analyses were performed to determine
whether there was any association between baseline or demographic characteristics
and treatment response. No such relationship was found.
Figure 1: Comparison of Proportion Responder50
at 6 Months
Effectiveness
Primary Efficacy Objective - Pivotal Study
The Pivotal study included a primary efficacy objective
composed of 3 parts. All 3 parts of the primary objective were met. The study
was only powered for the primary endpoint and was not designed or powered to
demonstrate a statistical difference between Solesta and Sham for the secondary
efficacy endpoints.
Superiority was shown for Solesta (53.2%) versus Sham
(30.7%) at 6 months (p=0.004; logistic regression), as illustrated in Figure 1,
based on analysis of proportion Responder50. Responder50, defined as proportion
of patients with a ≥ 50% reduction in number of incontinence episodes
compared to baseline, has been used to objectively evaluate response to
treatments for FI in other studies.
The second success criterion required that the results
achieve a pre-specified minimum level of responders in the treatment group as
defined by a lower confidence limit (LCL) of at least 35%. The LCL of the 95%
confidence interval of the proportion Responder50 at 6 months was 40.2%, as
illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Solesta Proportion Responders at 6 and 12
Months
Table5: Related Adverse Events (Including Serious AEs)
by Time Interval of Event Onset Experienced by at Least 2 Patients Following
Blinded or Open-Label Treatment with Solesta through Month 36 in the Pivotal
Study. MedDRA Preferred Term. Safety Population (n=197)
MedDRA Preferred Term |
↓ 1st Solesta injection |
↓ 2nd Solesta injection (at 1 month) |
1st solesta injection - 48 hours
(N = 197) n (%) |
> 48 hours - 7 days
(N = 197) n (%) |
> 7 days - 1 month
(N = 197) n (%) |
> 1 month - 2 months
(N = 197) n (%) |
> 2 months - 6 months
(N = 197) n (%) |
> 6 months - 36 months
(N = 194) n (%) |
> 36 months
(N = 117) n (%) |
Proctalgia |
17 (8.6%) |
2 (1.0%) |
7 (3.6%) |
12 (6.1%) |
1 (0.5%) |
3 (1.5%) |
0 |
Injection site hemorrhage |
5 (2.5%) |
0 |
3 (1.5%) |
6 (3.0%) |
3 (1.5%) |
0 |
0 |
Rectal hemorrhage |
2 (1.0%) |
1 (0.5%) |
2 (1.0%) |
6 (3.0%) |
2 (1.0%) |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
Pyrexia |
7 (3.6%) |
0 |
2 (1.0%) |
5 (2.5%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Diarrhea |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
3 (1.5%) |
3 (1.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
Injection site pain |
6 (3.0%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
Anorectal discomfort |
3 (1.5%) |
0 |
2 (1.0%) |
2 (1.0%) |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
0 |
Anal hemorrhage |
4 (2.0%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
3 (1.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
Rectal discharge |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
4 (2.0%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Proctitis |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
0 |
Anal prolapse |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
Constipation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 (1.0%) |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
Anal pruritus |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
Abdominal pain lower |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
Defecation urgency |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Painful defecation |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rectal obstruction |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
Chills |
3 (1.5%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Injection site nodule |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 (1.5%) |
0 |
Pain |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Rectal abscess |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Anal fissure |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
Rectovaginal septum abscess |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.9%) |
Dyspareunia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 (1.0%) |
0 |
0 |
Alopecia |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 (0.5%) |
1 (0.5%) |
0 |
0 |
Notes: The following treatment-related adverse events
were reported for 1 patient each: abdominal discomfort, abdominal distension,
abdominal pain, abdominal rigidity, fecal incontinence, hard feces,
gastrointestinal motility disorder, gastrointestinal pain, hemorrhoids,
intestinal mass, nausea, rectal spasm, device dislocation, fatigue, implant
site cyst, injection site inflammation, injection site irritation, injection
site swelling, pelvic mass, anal abscess, Escherichia coli bacteremia,
injection site pustule, mucosal excoriation, c-reactive protein increased, back
pain, musculoskeletal pain, urinary retention, genital prolapse, perineal pain,
vaginal discharge, vulvovaginal pain, cold sweat, and dermatitis.
The down arrow symbol (↓) indicates the timing of Solesta injections.
Greater than 80% of subjects had 2 injections with Solesta (initial treatment and
re-treatment approximately 1 month later). |
Primary Endpoint Pivotal And Supporting Studies
All three studies show durability of the treatment effect
to 24 months as evidenced by the proportion Responder50. As shown in Table 6 the proportion Responder50 at 6, 12 and 24 months were similar across
all three studies. In addition, the Pivotal study showed durability of the
treatment effect to 36 months.
Table 6: Summary of Proportion of Responder50
at 6,12, 24 and 36 Months with Solesta Treatment.
Proportion Responder50 [95% CI] |
Pivotal study (ITT, PIM [6 month time point]; ITT, LOCF [12, 24, and 36 month time points])a |
Open-Label Study (ITT, OC) |
Proof-of-Concept Study (OC) |
6 months |
53.2% |
57.1% |
44.1% |
[40.2-65.8] |
[47.3-66.9] |
[27.4-60.8] |
n= 136 |
n ii vO 00 |
n=34 |
12 months |
57.4% |
64.4% |
55.9% |
[49.0-65.7] |
[54.3-74.4] |
[39.2-72.6] |
n=l36 |
n ii 00 |
n=34 |
24 months |
54.4% |
62.7% |
59.4% |
[46.0-62.8] |
[51.7-73.6] |
[42.4-76.4] |
6 3 = n |
n=75 |
n=32 |
36 months |
52.2% [43.8-60.6] n=l36 |
N/A |
N/A |
a The responder50 proportion at 6
months in the ITT population was determined from the primary imputation model
and is the same as shown in Figure 1. The responder50 proportions at
12, 24, and 36 months in the ITT population were determined by the LOCF method.
The responder50 proportion at 6 months by the LOCF method was 52.2%
[43.8-60.6].
CI = confidence interval; ITT = intent-to-treat; LOCF = last observation
carried forward; PIM = primary imputation model;OC = observed cases; n = number
of patients |
In the Proof-of-Concept study, 34 patients were treated
in the study and 33 patients were followed for 24 months. In total, 53
treatments with Solesta were administered in the study. These patients
experienced a total of 86 treatment-related adverse events that were reported by
29 patients. No treatment-related adverse event was reported as serious. The
duration was 1-4 days for most events and all events were resolved within 1
week. No adverse events occurred after month 12. One (1) patient gave birth to
a healthy child approximately 18 months after treatment and the delivery was a
normal vaginal delivery. The observed adverse events were similar to those seen
in the Pivotal study.
Secondary Endpoints For Pivotal And Supporting Studies
The following secondary endpoints were evaluated in the
three clinical studies:
- Fecal incontinence episodes
- Fecal incontinence-free days
- Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL) assessment
- Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence Score (CCFIS) or
Miller Score
Fecal Incontinence Episodes
In the Pivotal study, reductions in number of FI episodes
from baseline at both 3 and 6 months were observed in both the Solesta and Sham
treatment groups. For the Solesta group the median FI episodes were shown to
decrease from 15 episodes at baseline to 7.2 episodes at 6 months and 6.2
episodes at 12 months. For the Sham group the median FI episodes were shown to
decrease from 12.5 episodes at baseline to 10.0 episodes at 6 months (see Table
7). Both the Solesta and Sham groups showed a change from baseline at 6 months,
and the change from baseline in the Solesta group was larger than that observed
for the Sham group. Similar reductions from baseline with Solesta treatment
were observed in the Open-Label study and the Proof-of-Concept study.
Figure 3 shows the sustained improvement in Responder50 analysis
and reduction in fecal incontinence episodes over 36 months in the Pivotal
study for the Solesta group only.
Figure 3: Median Number of FI Episodes and Proportion
Responder50 at Each Follow Up Time Point in the Pivotal Study. Solesta ITT
Population (n=136)
Table 7: Median Number of Fecal Incontinence
Episodes/14 Days for Each Treatment Group and Change from Baseline to 6 Months.
As Observed. Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF). ITT population (n=206
patients: Pivotal Study)
Number of episodes |
Solesta
(n=l36) |
Sham
(n=70) |
Difference in median changes between groups (Solesta-Sham) |
Median |
Median |
Baseline |
15.0 |
12.5 |
|
6 months |
7.2 |
10.0 |
|
Δ from baseline |
-6.0 |
-3.0 |
-3.0 |
% Δ from baseline |
-50.6 |
-22.6 |
-28.0 |
Fecal Incontinence-free Days
In all three studies, an increase in number of fecal
incontinence-free days was observed with Solesta treatment. In the Pivotal
study at 6 months, both the Solesta and Sham treatment groups experienced an
increase in number of incontinence free days from their pre-treatment baseline values
of 4.4 days and 4.8 days, respectively. However, the Solesta group demonstrated
an increase of 3.1 fecal incontinence-free days when compared to the Sham group
increase of 2.0 days. At 12 months, the increase in number of fecal
incontinence-free days in the Solesta group was maintained at 3.4 days. Similar
increases in number of fecal incontinence-free days with Solesta treatment were
shown in the Open-Label study and the Proof-of-Concept study.
Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life assessment (FIQL)
The FIQL scale is a validated tool that is specifically
designed to assess the impact of FI on a patient's quality of life. In the
blinded phase of the Pivotal study, improvement in FIQL scores compared to
baseline was observed in both the Solesta and Sham groups at 6 months. The change
from baseline score was greater in the Solesta group than the Sham group in all
four domains: Lifestyle (Δ=0.22), Coping/Behavior (Δ=0.25), Depression/Self
perception (Δ=0.09) and Embarrassment domains (Δ=0.16), (see Table 8). In the
Open-Label study, FIQL scores showed a similar improvement. The
Proof-of-Concept study did not evaluate FIQL.
Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence Score (CCFIS)
The CCFIS is a validated measure of the impact of FI on
patients. In the pivotal study, in both the Solesta and Sham groups, the CCFIS was
improved as compared to baseline at 6 months. The difference at 6 months in
mean change from baseline between the Solesta group and the Sham group was
small (see Table 8). Solesta showed improvements from baseline at 12 months in
both the Pivotal study and the Open-Label study.
The Proof-of-Concept study did not incorporate CCFIS but
instead used the Miller Score, another assessment tool for FI. The Miller Score
is based on a subject interview using standardized questions regarding
incidence and type of incontinence (solid, liquid or gas). Improvements from
baseline and sustained improvements were shown at 6, 12, and 24 months.
Table 8: Secondary Efficacy Evaluations of Difference
in Change from Baseline Between Solesta and Sham at 6 Months. LOCF. ITT
Population (n=206 Patients: Pivotal Study)
Secondary endpoints |
Score/ Scale range |
Estimate of mean change from baseline |
Estimate of difference (95% CI) |
Solesta |
Sham |
Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQL) scale (higher score = increased QoL) |
Lifestyle* |
1-4 |
0.33 |
0.11 |
0.22
(0.04:0.40) |
Coping/Behavior* |
1-4 |
0.44 |
0.19 |
0.25
(0.08:0.43) |
Depression/Self perception* |
1-6 |
0.27 |
0.18 |
0.09
(-0.08:0.26) |
Embarrassment* |
1-4 |
0.53 |
0.38 |
0.16
(-0.05:0.36) |
Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence Score (CCFIS) |
CCFIS score† |
0 = continent; 20 = total incontinence |
-3.06 |
-2.85 |
-0.21
(-1.15:0.72) |
* Positive value indicates improvement; † Negative value
indicate improvement |