Efficacy and safety of ospemifene in postmenopausal women with moderate-to-severe vaginal dryness: a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ospemifene for the treatment of moderate to severe vaginal dryness in postmenopausal women with vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA). METHODS: This 12-week, multicenter, double-blind phase 3 study randomized postmenopausal women (aged 40-80 years) with VVA and moderate to severe vaginal dryness as their most bothersome symptom to daily oral ospemifene 60 mg or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints included changes from baseline to week 12 in percentages of vaginal parabasal and superficial cells, vaginal pH, and vaginal dryness severity with ospemifene versus placebo; other secondary endpoints were evaluated (weeks 4, 8, and 12). Safety was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and endometrial biopsies. RESULTS: Women (n = 631; ospemifene [n = 316], placebo [n = 315]) had a mean age of 59.8 years, a mean body mass index of 27.2 kg/m, and most were white. Ospemifene significantly improved (P < 0.0001) the percentages of parabasal and superficial cells, vaginal pH, and severity of vaginal dryness severity compared with placebo at week 12; significant between-group differences were noted by week 4. Secondary endpoints of dyspareunia (P < 0.001), maturation value (P < 0.0001), and the Female Sexual Function Index (P < 0.05) also significantly improved with ospemifene versus placebo at week 12. Significantly more women responded (31.5% vs 6.0%; P < 0.0001) or were satisfied (49.2% vs 33.8%; P = 0.0007) with ospemifene versus placebo at week 12. No unexpected TEAEs, treatment-related serious TEAEs, thrombotic events, or endometrial hyperplasia or carcinoma were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ospemifene was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe vaginal dryness in postmenopausal women with VVA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".