Skip to content

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of AVP-786 for the Treatment of Agitation in Participants With Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type

A Phase 3, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Assess the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of AVP-786 (Deuterated [d6]-Dextromethorphan Hydrobromide [d6-DM]/Quinidine Sulfate [Q]) for the Treatment of Agitation in Patients With Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02442778
Enrollment
522
Registered
2015-05-13
Start date
2015-11-11
Completion date
2019-09-09
Last updated
2022-09-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Agitation in Participants With Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type

Brief summary

Participants with agitation secondary to dementia of the Alzheimer's type. The diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) will be based on the 2011 Diagnostic Guidelines for Alzheimer's Disease issued by the National Institute on Aging (NIA)-Alzheimer's Association (AA) workgroups.

Detailed description

Eligible participants for this study must have a diagnosis of probable AD and must have clinically meaningful agitation secondary to AD. This is a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study, consisting of 12 weeks of treatment. Approximately 470 participants will be enrolled at approximately 75 centers in North America. Study medication will be administered orally twice-daily from Day 1 through Week 12 (Day 85). Screening will occur within approximately 4 weeks prior to randomization. Following screening procedures for assessment of inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible participants will be randomized into the study.

Interventions

42.63 mg of d6-DM and 4.9 mg of Q

DRUGAVP-786-18

18 mg of Deudextromethorphan hydrobromide (d6-DM) and 4.9 mg of Quinidine sulfate (Q)

DRUGPlacebo

Administered as capsules.

28 mg of d6-DM and 4.9 mg of Q

Sponsors

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc.
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
50 Years to 90 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's Disease (AD) according to the 2011 National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) working groups criteria * The participant has clinically significant, moderate/severe agitation at the time of screening and for at least 2 weeks prior to randomization * The diagnosis of agitation must meet the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) provisional definition of agitation * Either out participants or residents of an assisted-living facility or a skilled nursing home * Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS) score assessing Agitation is \>=4 (moderately ill) at screening and baseline * Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score is between 6 and 26 (inclusive) at screening and baseline * Caregiver who is able and willing to comply with all required study procedures. In order to qualify as a reliable informant (i.e., caregiver) capable of assessing changes in participant's condition during the study, the individual must spend a minimum of 2 hours per day for 4 days per week with the participant.

Exclusion criteria

* Participant has dementia predominantly of non-Alzheimer's type (e.g., vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's disease, substance-induced dementia) * Participants with co-existent clinically significant or unstable systemic diseases that could confound the interpretation of the safety results of the study (e.g., malignancy, poorly controlled diabetes, poorly controlled hypertension, unstable pulmonary, renal or hepatic disease, unstable ischemic cardiac disease, dilated cardiomyopathy, or unstable valvular heart disease) * Participant with myasthenia gravis

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite ScoreBaseline, Week 12The CMAI was used to assess the frequency of manifestations of agitated behaviors in elderly participants. It consists of 29 agitated items rated on a 7-point scale of frequency: 1, never; 2, less than once a week; 3, once or twice a week; 4, several times a week; 5, once or twice a day; 6, several times a day; 7, several times an hour. The CMAI total score ranges from 29 to 203. Higher scores indicate worsening of the condition. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for the analysis.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression Domain ScoreBaseline, Week 12The NPI is a retrospective caregiver-informant interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains. The Agitation/Aggression domain is designed to collect information on the behavioral aspects of agitation/aggression in participants with probable AD and clinically meaningful agitation secondary to AD. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Agitation/Aggression Caregiver Distress ScoreBaseline, Week 12The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate caregiver distress. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total caregiver distress score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain ScoreBaseline, Week 12The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate aberrant motor behavior. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as: 1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) ScoreBaseline, Week 12The ZBI is a 22-item scale used to assess the impact of a participants' disabilities on the caregiver's life. It is designed to reflect the burden experienced by caregivers of dementia participants and can either be completed by the caregiver or administered as an interview. Each item of the scale is rated to reflect the burden using the 5-point scale: 0=Never; 1=Rarely; 2=Sometimes; 3=Quite Frequently; 4=Nearly Always. The ZBI is scored by summing the responses of the individual questions and ranges from 0 to 88. Higher scores indicate greater caregiver distress. Negative change from baseline indicates less distress. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Irritability/Lability Domain ScoreBaseline, Week 12The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains, including the irritability/lability domain score. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening of the symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Total ScoreBaseline, Week 12NPI evaluates both frequency and severity of 12 neuropsychiatric disturbances including delusions, hallucinations, agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, anxiety, elation/euphoria, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, irritability/lability, motor disturbance, night time behaviors, as well as appetite/eating. Total domain score= frequency x severity and thus ranges from 1 to 12. NPI domain is rated by caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Frequency is rated as:1=occasionally, 2=often, 3= frequently, and 4=very frequently. Severity is rated as:1=mild,2=moderate,3=severe. Frequency and severity rating scales has defined anchor points to enhance reliability of caregiver responses. Caregiver distress is rated for each positive neuropsychiatric symptom using following anchored scores. It is rated as 0=not at all,1=minimal,2=mild,3=moderate,4=severe,5=very severe. Individual Item scores are added to yield a possible total score of 0 to 144. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS)-Agitation Domain ScoreBaseline, Week 12The CGIS-Agitation is an observer-rated scale that measures illness severity. The CGIS-Agitation is a 7-point (1-7) scale (1=normal, not at all ill participants; 7=among the most extremely ill participants) and is assessed for severity of agitation. A value of 0 is given to participants who are not assessed. Higher scores indicate poor health of participants. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Overall RatingBaseline, Week 12The ADCS-CGIC rating scale provides a reliable means to assess change from a Baseline level of global function within the time frame of the trial. ADCS-CGIC-Overall focuses on the clinician's observations of change in the participant's cognitive, functional, and behavioral performance. The ADCS-CGIC-Overall responses (1-7) are rated as: 1 = marked improvement, 2 = moderate improvement, 3 = minimal improvement, 4 = no change, 5 = minimal worsening, 6 = moderate worsening, or 7 = marked worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Relative Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)-Agitation ScoreBaseline, Week 12The mADCS-CGIC-Agitation is a modified version of the ADCS-CGIC containing additional questions related to agitation and an assessment of the Clinician's Impression of Change focused specifically on agitation. Participants are asked to rate their impression of change as: 1=Marked Improvement; 2=Moderate Improvement; 3=Minimal Improvement; 4=No Change; 5=Minimal Worsening; 6=Moderate Worsening; 7=Marked Worsening. Higher scores indicate worsening of agitation and positive change from baseline indicates worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Dementia Quality of Life (DEMQOL) ScoreBaseline, Week 12The DEMQOL scale is used to evaluate health-related QOL in participants with dementia and their caregivers. There are 2 versions of the DEMQOL: a 28-item version (rated by the participant); and a 31-item version (DEMQOL-proxy, rated by the caregiver). Both versions are recommended for evaluating participants (and their caregivers) with mild to moderate dementia. The DEMQOL total score ranges from 28 to 112. The DEMQOL-proxy is used for participants with severe dementia; the total score ranges from 31 to 124. For both versions, higher scores indicate greater QOL. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) ScoreBaseline, Week 12The CSDD scale is used to assess signs/symptoms of major depression in participants with dementia. CSDD has 19 items, and each item is rated for severity on the following scale of 0 to 2 (0 =absent, 1= mild/intermittent 2=severe). CSDD score is calculated by summing non-missing scores from each item score. The scale ranges from 0 (no depression) to 38 (maximum depression). Scores above 10 indicate a probable major depression, above 18 indicate a definite major depression, and below 6 as a rule are associated with the absence of significant depressive symptoms. Higher score indicated maximum depression. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Week 12The GMHR is a global clinical rating for medical health, designed to quantify in a single number (1 to 4) the severity of general comorbidity in a participant with dementia. The ratings are: 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good; 4 = excellent to very good. MMRM was used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) ScoreBaseline, Week 12The ADAS is designed to evaluate the cognitive and non-cognitive behavioral dysfunction characteristics of participants with AD. The cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) consists of 11 subsets related to memory, praxis, and language. ADAS-cog scores range from 0 to 70. Higher scores indicate greater cognitive impairment. Negative change from baseline indicates less cognitive impairment. MMRM method was used for analysis.
Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantWeek 12The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations and doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on hours per day the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing? Q2= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters? Q3= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you spend supervising (that is, preventing dangerous events) the participant?
Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantWeek 12The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on days the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing) services to the participant? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters) services to the participant? Q3= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these services (supervising) to the participant?
Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalWeek 12The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on the number of hospital visits, emergency visits and visits to healthcare professional were reported in this outcome measure using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many times did the participant receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many times did the caregiver receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q3= During the last 30 days total number of visits by participant to a health care professional? Q4= During the last 30 days, how many times (number of visits for each) the participant visited any other health care professional?
Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) ScoreBaseline, Week 12The PGIC is a 7-point (1-7) scale used to assess treatment response: 1 = very much improved, = much improved, 3 = minimally improved, 4 = no change, 5 = minimally worse, 6 = much worse, or 7 = very much worse. Higher scores indicate less response to treatment. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Countries

Canada, United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Participants took part in the study at 83 investigative sites in North America from 11 November 2015 to 09 September 2019.

Pre-assignment details

A total of 925 participants were screened of which 522 participants were enrolled and 521 participants were randomized to receive placebo or AVP-786-28 or AVP-786-42.63.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Placebo
Participants were administered AVP-786 matching placebo capsules, orally, BID for up to 12 weeks.
210
AVP-786-28
Participants were administered AVP-786-18 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-18 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12.
151
AVP-786-42.63
Participants were administered AVP-786-28 capsule, orally, QD along with AVP-786 matching placebo capsule, orally, QD during Week 1 followed by AVP-786-28 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 2, 3 and AVP-786-42.63 capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 4 to 12.
161
Total522

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Overall StudyAdverse Event266
Overall StudyDeath020
Overall StudyLack of Efficacy100
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up111
Overall StudyNon-compliance with study drug201
Overall StudyPhysician Decision111
Overall StudyProtocol Deviation301
Overall StudyReason not specified140
Overall StudyStudy participant withdrawal by parent or guardian3122
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject443

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPlaceboAVP-786-28AVP-786-42.63Total
Age, Continuous76.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.1
74.6 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.9
74.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.3
75.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.9
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Hispanic or Latino
128 Participants78 Participants113 Participants319 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity
Not Hispanic or Latino
82 Participants73 Participants48 Participants203 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Asian
0 Participants2 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Black or African American
13 Participants14 Participants6 Participants33 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
Other
0 Participants5 Participants0 Participants5 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race
White
196 Participants129 Participants155 Participants480 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
117 Participants84 Participants96 Participants297 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
93 Participants67 Participants65 Participants225 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 2103 / 1510 / 161
other
Total, other adverse events
40 / 21031 / 15130 / 160
serious
Total, serious adverse events
10 / 21015 / 1518 / 160

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite Score

The CMAI was used to assess the frequency of manifestations of agitated behaviors in elderly participants. It consists of 29 agitated items rated on a 7-point scale of frequency: 1, never; 2, less than once a week; 3, once or twice a week; 4, several times a week; 5, once or twice a day; 6, several times a day; 7, several times an hour. The CMAI total score ranges from 29 to 203. Higher scores indicate worsening of the condition. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement. Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite ScoreBaseline73.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.13
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite ScoreChange from Baseline at Week 12-16.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.97
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite ScoreBaseline68.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.39
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite ScoreChange from Baseline at Week 12-12.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.21
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite ScoreBaseline71.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.87
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) Composite ScoreChange from Baseline at Week 12-17.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.12
p-value: 0.78995% CI: [-2.7, 3.5]MMRM
p-value: 0.295% CI: [-5, 1]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) Score

The CSDD scale is used to assess signs/symptoms of major depression in participants with dementia. CSDD has 19 items, and each item is rated for severity on the following scale of 0 to 2 (0 =absent, 1= mild/intermittent 2=severe). CSDD score is calculated by summing non-missing scores from each item score. The scale ranges from 0 (no depression) to 38 (maximum depression). Scores above 10 indicate a probable major depression, above 18 indicate a definite major depression, and below 6 as a rule are associated with the absence of significant depressive symptoms. Higher score indicated maximum depression. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) Score-1.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.84
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) Score-0.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.9
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline in the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) Score-1.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.57
p-value: 0.03895% CI: [0, 1.2]MMRM
p-value: 0.91195% CI: [-0.6, 0.5]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) Score

The ADAS is designed to evaluate the cognitive and non-cognitive behavioral dysfunction characteristics of participants with AD. The cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) consists of 11 subsets related to memory, praxis, and language. ADAS-cog scores range from 0 to 70. Higher scores indicate greater cognitive impairment. Negative change from baseline indicates less cognitive impairment. MMRM method was used for analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) Score-2.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.67
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) Score-1.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.36
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) Score-1.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.38
p-value: 0.23695% CI: [-0.6, 2.6]MMRM
p-value: 0.68495% CI: [-1.3, 1.9]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Overall Rating

The ADCS-CGIC rating scale provides a reliable means to assess change from a Baseline level of global function within the time frame of the trial. ADCS-CGIC-Overall focuses on the clinician's observations of change in the participant's cognitive, functional, and behavioral performance. The ADCS-CGIC-Overall responses (1-7) are rated as: 1 = marked improvement, 2 = moderate improvement, 3 = minimal improvement, 4 = no change, 5 = minimal worsening, 6 = moderate worsening, or 7 = marked worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Overall Rating3.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Overall Rating3.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.31
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) Overall Rating3.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.23
p-value: 0.495% CI: [-0.2, 0.4]MMRM
p-value: 0.56695% CI: [-0.3, 0.2]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS)-Agitation Domain Score

The CGIS-Agitation is an observer-rated scale that measures illness severity. The CGIS-Agitation is a 7-point (1-7) scale (1=normal, not at all ill participants; 7=among the most extremely ill participants) and is assessed for severity of agitation. A value of 0 is given to participants who are not assessed. Higher scores indicate poor health of participants. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS)-Agitation Domain Score-0.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.85
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS)-Agitation Domain Score-0.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.92
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Clinical Global Impression of Severity of Illness (CGIS)-Agitation Domain Score-0.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.93
p-value: 0.46895% CI: [-0.3, 0.1]MMRM
p-value: 0.15895% CI: [-0.3, 0.1]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Dementia Quality of Life (DEMQOL) Score

The DEMQOL scale is used to evaluate health-related QOL in participants with dementia and their caregivers. There are 2 versions of the DEMQOL: a 28-item version (rated by the participant); and a 31-item version (DEMQOL-proxy, rated by the caregiver). Both versions are recommended for evaluating participants (and their caregivers) with mild to moderate dementia. The DEMQOL total score ranges from 28 to 112. The DEMQOL-proxy is used for participants with severe dementia; the total score ranges from 31 to 124. For both versions, higher scores indicate greater QOL. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Dementia Quality of Life (DEMQOL) Score2.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.1
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Dementia Quality of Life (DEMQOL) Score3.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.1
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Dementia Quality of Life (DEMQOL) Score3.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.74
p-value: 0.78295% CI: [-1.8, 2.4]MMRM
p-value: 0.99195% CI: [-2.1, 2]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression Domain Score

The NPI is a retrospective caregiver-informant interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains. The Agitation/Aggression domain is designed to collect information on the behavioral aspects of agitation/aggression in participants with probable AD and clinically meaningful agitation secondary to AD. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression Domain Score-2.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.17
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression Domain Score-2.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.32
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression Domain Score-3.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.32
p-value: 0.41695% CI: [-0.9, 0.4]MMRM
p-value: 0.06695% CI: [-1.3, 0]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain Score

The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate aberrant motor behavior. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as: 1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as: 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain Score-1.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.75
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain Score-1.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.6
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Aberrant Motor Behavior Domain Score-1.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.57
p-value: 0.97595% CI: [-0.7, 0.7]MMRM
p-value: 0.33495% CI: [-1, 0.3]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Agitation/Aggression Caregiver Distress Score

The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains and is used to evaluate caregiver distress. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, marked severe. The total caregiver distress score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12 with a higher score indicating worsening of symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Agitation/Aggression Caregiver Distress Score-0.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.44
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Agitation/Aggression Caregiver Distress Score-0.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.61
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Agitation/Aggression Caregiver Distress Score-0.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.47
p-value: 0.24995% CI: [-0.5, 0.1]MMRM
p-value: 0.19995% CI: [-0.5, 0.1]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Irritability/Lability Domain Score

The NPI is a retrospective interview covering 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains, including the irritability/lability domain score. Each NPI domain is rated by the caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Symptom frequency is rated as:1, occasionally; 2, often; 3, frequently; 4, very frequently. Symptom severity is rated as:1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe. The total domain score is calculated as the frequency score multiplied by the severity score and thus ranges from 1 to 12. Higher scores indicate worsening of the symptoms. Negative change from baseline indicates improvement in symptoms. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Irritability/Lability Domain Score-1.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Irritability/Lability Domain Score-1.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.55
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Irritability/Lability Domain Score-2.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.29
p-value: 0.88895% CI: [-0.7, 0.6]MMRM
p-value: 0.01995% CI: [-1.3, -0.1]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Total Score

NPI evaluates both frequency and severity of 12 neuropsychiatric disturbances including delusions, hallucinations, agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, anxiety, elation/euphoria, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, irritability/lability, motor disturbance, night time behaviors, as well as appetite/eating. Total domain score= frequency x severity and thus ranges from 1 to 12. NPI domain is rated by caregiver for symptom frequency and severity. Frequency is rated as:1=occasionally, 2=often, 3= frequently, and 4=very frequently. Severity is rated as:1=mild,2=moderate,3=severe. Frequency and severity rating scales has defined anchor points to enhance reliability of caregiver responses. Caregiver distress is rated for each positive neuropsychiatric symptom using following anchored scores. It is rated as 0=not at all,1=minimal,2=mild,3=moderate,4=severe,5=very severe. Individual Item scores are added to yield a possible total score of 0 to 144. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Total Score-12.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.06
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Total Score-9.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.41
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the NPI Total Score-16.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.05
p-value: 0.75695% CI: [-2.9, 4]MMRM
p-value: 0.03895% CI: [-7, -0.2]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Score

The PGIC is a 7-point (1-7) scale used to assess treatment response: 1 = very much improved, = much improved, 3 = minimally improved, 4 = no change, 5 = minimally worse, 6 = much worse, or 7 = very much worse. Higher scores indicate less response to treatment. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Score3.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.01
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Score3.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.07
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Score2.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.05
p-value: 0.75195% CI: [-0.2, 0.3]MMRM
p-value: 0.3295% CI: [-0.3, 0.1]MMRM
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) Score

The ZBI is a 22-item scale used to assess the impact of a participants' disabilities on the caregiver's life. It is designed to reflect the burden experienced by caregivers of dementia participants and can either be completed by the caregiver or administered as an interview. Each item of the scale is rated to reflect the burden using the 5-point scale: 0=Never; 1=Rarely; 2=Sometimes; 3=Quite Frequently; 4=Nearly Always. The ZBI is scored by summing the responses of the individual questions and ranges from 0 to 88. Higher scores indicate greater caregiver distress. Negative change from baseline indicates less distress. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboChange From Baseline to Week 12 in the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) Score-1.77 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.275
AVP-786-28Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) Score-1.03 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.195
AVP-786-42.63Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) Score-0.23 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.769
p-value: 0.93495% CI: [-2.4, 2.2]MMRM
p-value: 0.34295% CI: [-1.2, 3.4]MMRM
Secondary

Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12

The GMHR is a global clinical rating for medical health, designed to quantify in a single number (1 to 4) the severity of general comorbidity in a participant with dementia. The ratings are: 1 = poor; 2 = fair; 3 = good; 4 = excellent to very good. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Excellent to Very Good22 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Good80 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Good6 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Missing7 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Excellent to Very Good6 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Missing to Good1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Poor1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Good17 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Fair53 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Missing1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Missing5 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Fair11 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Fair0 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Good65 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Poor0 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Excellent to Very Good7 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Missing4 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Missing9 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Good9 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Fair3 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Missing4 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Good6 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Missing to Good0 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Excellent to Very Good6 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Fair31 Participants
AVP-786-28Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Fair6 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Missing0 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Fair11 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Excellent to Very Good3 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Excellent to Very Good10 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Good65 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Good4 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Missing to Good0 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Fair43 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Poor to Fair1 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Poor0 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Missing7 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Fair to Missing4 Participants
AVP-786-42.63Number of Participants With the Change From Baseline in the General Medical Health Rating (GMHR) Score at Week 12Good to Good10 Participants
Secondary

Relative Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)-Agitation Score

The mADCS-CGIC-Agitation is a modified version of the ADCS-CGIC containing additional questions related to agitation and an assessment of the Clinician's Impression of Change focused specifically on agitation. Participants are asked to rate their impression of change as: 1=Marked Improvement; 2=Moderate Improvement; 3=Minimal Improvement; 4=No Change; 5=Minimal Worsening; 6=Moderate Worsening; 7=Marked Worsening. Higher scores indicate worsening of agitation and positive change from baseline indicates worsening. MMRM was used for the analysis.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Overall number of participants analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboRelative Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)-Agitation Score2.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.18
AVP-786-28Relative Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)-Agitation Score3.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.23
AVP-786-42.63Relative Change From Baseline to Week 12 in the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC)-Agitation Score2.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
p-value: 0.48495% CI: [-0.2, 0.4]MMRM
p-value: 0.70495% CI: [-0.3, 0.2]MMRM
Secondary

Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the Participant

The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on days the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing) services to the participant? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these (shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters) services to the participant? Q3= During the last 30 days, how many days did you spend providing these services (supervising) to the participant?

Time frame: Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ330.0 days
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ130.0 days
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ230.0 days
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ230.0 days
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ330.0 days
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ130.0 days
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ130.0 days
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ330.0 days
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Days the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ230.0 days
Secondary

Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the Participant

The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations and doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on hours per day the caregiver spent assisting participant were reported in this outcome measure, using the following questions: Q1= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as toilet visits, eating, dressing, grooming, walking and bathing? Q2= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you assist the participant with tasks such as shopping, food preparation, housekeeping, laundry, transportation, taking medication and managing financial matters? Q3= On a typical care day during the last 30 days, how much time per day did you spend supervising (that is, preventing dangerous events) the participant?

Time frame: Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at a specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ13.0 hours
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ35.0 hours
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ24.5 hours
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ25.0 hours
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ13.0 hours
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ34.0 hours
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ36.0 hours
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ13.0 hours
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Hours Per Day the Caregiver Spent Assisting the ParticipantQ25.0 hours
Secondary

Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare Professional

The RUD evaluates dementia participants' utilization of formal and informal healthcare resources, including hospitalizations, doctor visits, living assistance, and time spent by nonprofessional caregivers. Information on the number of hospital visits, emergency visits and visits to healthcare professional were reported in this outcome measure using the following questions: Q1= During the last 30 days, how many times did the participant receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q2= During the last 30 days, how many times did the caregiver receive care in a hospital emergency room (for less than 24 hours)? Q3= During the last 30 days total number of visits by participant to a health care professional? Q4= During the last 30 days, how many times (number of visits for each) the participant visited any other health care professional?

Time frame: Week 12

Population: mITT Population included all randomized participants who had at least one post-baseline efficacy assessment. Participants were included in the treatment group to which they were randomized regardless of treatment received. Number analysed signifies the number of participants with available data for analysis at specific timepoint.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ11.0 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 0
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ21.0 Number of visits
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ32.7 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 1.35
PlaceboResource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ42.2 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 0.88
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ11.3 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 0.58
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ32.5 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 1.28
AVP-786-28Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ42.1 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 0.51
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ42.0 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 0.59
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ32.6 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 1.45
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ21.0 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 0
AVP-786-42.63Resource Utilization in Dementia (RUD) Score: Number of Visits to Hospital, Emergency, and Healthcare ProfessionalQ11.3 Number of visitsStandard Deviation 0.58

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 14, 2026