The purpose of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of bilateral intramuscular injections of VM202 versus placebo in the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A total of 507 of 477 planned participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to one of two treatment groups. Note that 500 participants received Investigational product treatment, whereas 7 participants did not receive Investigational product treatment. Treatments - Engensis (VM202) - 336 Engensis of 318 planned participants Control - Placebo (VM202 vehicle) - 164 Placebo of 159 planned participants Randomization were stratified by current use of gabapentin and/or pregabalin.
Peripheral neuropathy is a serious complication of diabetes. This form of neuropathy carries a high risk of pain, trophic changes, and autonomic dysfunction. Current treatments of diabetic peripheral neuropathy are based on either pathogenetic mechanisms or symptomatic relief. A number of clinical trials have established symptomatic treatment but for pathogenetic mechanisms, the only proven treatment strategy is strict glycemic control. Clearly, it would be desirable to prevent, impede, or reverse the disrupting and often life-threatening manifestations of peripheral neuropathy by stimulating growth or regeneration of peripheral nerve axons.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Enrollment
507
gene therapy
Arizona Research Center
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Clinical Trials, Inc.
Little Rock, Arkansas, United States
Richard S. Cherlin, MD
Los Gatos, California, United States
Northern California Research
Sacramento, California, United States
Center for Clinical Research
San Francisco, California, United States
Neurological Research Institute
Santa Monica, California, United States
Diablo Clinical Research, Inc.
Walnut Creek, California, United States
Associated Neurologists of Southern Connecticut, PC
Fairfield, Connecticut, United States
Innovative Research of West Florida
Clearwater, Florida, United States
University of Florida McKnight Brain Institute
Gainesville, Florida, United States
...and 15 more locations
Change in the Average 24 Hour Pain Score From Baseline to Day 90
Participants rated their 24-hour average daily pain intensity score using an 11-point numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) in a Daily Pain and Sleep Interference Diary
Time frame: The Pain and Sleep Interference diary was completed by participants for at least 5 assessments during a 7-day period at Screening (the mean 24-hour score was the reference/baseline score) and within 14 days prior to Day 90 visit.
Participants With at Least at 50 Percent Reduction in Average 24-hour Pain Score From Baseline to Day 90
Number of participants with at least a 50 percent reduction in average 24-hour pain score, using an 11-point numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) in the Daily Pain and Sleep Interference Diary
Time frame: Baseline to Day 90
Number of Participants With Treatment-emergent Adverse Events.
Number of Participants with at least one treatment-emergent adverse events.
Time frame: Baseline to Day 270
Change in the Average 24-hour Pain Score From Baseline to Day 180
Participants rated their 24-hour average daily pain intensity score using an 11-point numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) in the Daily Pain and Sleep Interference Diary
Time frame: Baseline to Day 180
Participants With at Least a 50 Percent Reduction in Average 24-hour Pain Score From Baseline to Day 180
The number of participants with at least a 50% reduction in average 24-hour pain score using an 11-point numerical rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) in the Daily Pain and Sleep Interference Diary
Time frame: Baseline to Day 180
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.