Responder Analyses from a Phase 2b Dose-Ranging Study of Bremelanotide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Responder analyses are used to determine whether changes that occur during a clinical trial are clinically meaningful; for subjective endpoints such as those based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), responder analyses are particularly useful. AIM: To identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for selected scores on questionnaires assessing female sexual functioning and to use these differences to analyze the response in a large, controlled, phase 2b, dose-finding study of bremelanotide in premenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) and mixed HSDD/female sexual arousal disorder (FSAD). METHODS: The responder analyses were performed for the change from baseline to end of study for a total of 7 endpoints. Each PRO endpoint was assessed using at least 1 of 4 types of responder analyses: a planned analysis anchored to MCIDs based on expert estimates (historical anchors); post hoc analyses based on self-reported global benefit; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves; and cumulative distribution function. The prespecified analysis groups were all female sexual dysfunction (FSD)-based diagnoses (all study participants), those with HSDD alone, and a combined group of those with FSAD alone plus those with mixed HSDD/FSAD. Post hoc analyses were also performed for subjects with mixed HSDD/FSAD with a primary diagnosis of HSDD. OUTCOMES: MCIDs based on the ROC curves for changes in Female Sexual Function Index-desire domain, Female Sexual Distress Scale-Desire/Arousal/Orgasm (FSDS-DAO) total score, FSDS-DAO item 13 and 14 scores, and number of satisfying sexual events. RESULTS: Outcomes matched those based on input from clinical experts. For all 7 endpoints, responder rates at the 1.75 mg dose in the overall modified intention-to-treat population achieved statistical significance compared with placebo (P ≤ .03). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These responder definitions were subsequently used in the bremelanotide phase 3 registration studies (RECONNECT) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of the bremelanotide 1.75 mg subcutaneous dose in premenopausal women with HSDD. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: MCIDs for this study were based on changes from a single-blind phase to account for changes due to the placebo effect. These analyses were restricted to a study population composed only of premenopausal women with a clinical diagnosis of HSDD and/or FSAD and were based on data from the same clinical trial. CONCLUSION: Bremelanotide was safe and well tolerated and demonstrated significant improvement in efficacy vs placebo in the phase 2b trial. The multiple responder analyses offer a valuable approach for determining clinically important effects of bremelanotide for HSDD and FSAD. Althof S, Derogatis LR, Greenberg S, et al. Responder Analyses from a Phase 2b Dose-Ranging Study of Bremelanotide. J Sex Med 2019;16:1226-1235.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".