Approval Probability
TA Base Rate
Adjusted LOA
ML Risk
Sinsunatovir · 1 trial · 1 indication
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
Participants were offered formulation for tasting where they had to swirl sample in their mouth for approximately 10 seconds, and then spit it out. Participant had to assess each sensory attribute on scale of 0 (good) to 100 (bad) after tasting formulation, lower score= better palatability. Following were sensory attributes: mouth feel (grittiness/stickiness or waxiness, 0= normal mouth feel,100=bad mouth feel);bitterness (degree of bitterness of the product, 0= not bitter at all,100= extremely bitter); sweetness(degree of sweet taste,0=sweet, 100= not sweet at all); sourness (degree of sour taste,0= not sour at all,100= extremely sour);saltiness(degree of salty taste,0=not salty at all,100= extremely salty); tongue/mouth burn(degree of tongue/mouth burn,0= no burn at all,100= extreme burn);overall liking (how much like or dislike product, 0= like, 100= dislike).Mean score for each sensory attributes based on palatability assessment questionnaire are reported in this outcome measure.
| Arm | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment A | EXPERIMENTAL | - |
| Treatment B | EXPERIMENTAL | - |
| Treatment C | OTHER | Comparator |
| Treatment D | EXPERIMENTAL | - |
| Treatment E | EXPERIMENTAL | - |
| Treatment F | EXPERIMENTAL | - |
| Name | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Sinsunatovir | DRUG | Single dose, to be spit out after tasting |
| Bitrex | OTHER | Single dose, to be spit out after tasting |
Inclusion Criteria: * Male and female participants aged 18 years or older (or the minimum age of consent in accordance with local regulations) at screening who are overtly healthy as determined by medical evaluation including medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, blood pressure, ...
Sinsunatovir is an investigational small molecule medicine being developed by Pfizer, Inc. It is in Phase 1 clinical development. The specific diseases or conditions it is intended to treat have not been publicly disclosed, and its therapeutic area is listed as other.
Sinsunatovir is being developed by Pfizer, Inc., which trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker PFE. Pfizer is the sponsor of the clinical program studying this investigational small molecule medicine.
Sinsunatovir is in Phase 1 clinical development. It is an investigational medicine and has not been approved by the FDA. One Phase 1 trial has been completed, and no trials are currently active.
Sinsunatovir has been studied in one completed Phase 1 trial, NCT06003829. That study enrolled 12 healthy adult participants in Belgium and evaluated the tastes of different suspensions containing the study medicine. It was a controlled, randomized trial without double blinding.
Yes, PF-07923568 is the development code used for Sinsunatovir. The completed Phase 1 trial NCT06003829 refers to the study medicine as PF-07923568, so searches for either name point to the same Pfizer investigational small molecule.