Flag of the European Union EU Clinical Trials Register Help

Clinical trials

The European Union Clinical Trials Register allows you to search for protocol and results information on:
  • interventional clinical trials that are conducted in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA);
  • clinical trials conducted outside the EU / EEA that are linked to European paediatric-medicine development.
  • Learn   more about the EU Clinical Trials Register   including the source of the information and the legal basis.


    The EU Clinical Trials Register currently displays   41470   clinical trials with a EudraCT protocol, of which   6815   are clinical trials conducted with subjects less than 18 years old.
    The register also displays information on   18700   older paediatric trials (in scope of Article 45 of the Paediatric Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006).


    Phase 1 trials conducted solely in adults and that are not part of an agreed PIP are not public in the EU CTR (refer to European Guidance 2008/C 168/02   Art. 3 par. 2 and   Commission Guideline 2012/C 302/03,   Art. 5) .
     
    Examples: Cancer AND drug name. Pneumonia AND sponsor name.
    How to search [pdf]
    Search Tips: Under advanced search you can use filters for Country, Age Group, Gender, Trial Phase, Trial Status, Date Range, Rare Diseases and Orphan Designation. For these items you should use the filters and not add them to your search terms in the text field.
    Advanced Search: Search tools
     

    < Back to search results

    Download PDF

    Clinical Trial Results:
    Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Efficacy (Induction of Remission) and Safety of Etrolizumab Compared With Adalimumab and Placebo in Patients With Moderate to Severe Ulcerative Colitis who are Naive to TNF Inhibitors

    Summary
    EudraCT number
    2013-004279-11
    Trial protocol
    EE   BG   SK   FR  
    Global end of trial date
    19 Mar 2020

    Results information
    Results version number
    v2(current)
    This version publication date
    25 Apr 2021
    First version publication date
    14 Feb 2021
    Other versions
    v1
    Version creation reason

    Trial information

    Close Top of page
    Trial identification
    Sponsor protocol code
    GA28948
    Additional study identifiers
    ISRCTN number
    -
    US NCT number
    NCT02163759
    WHO universal trial number (UTN)
    -
    Sponsors
    Sponsor organisation name
    F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.
    Sponsor organisation address
    Grenzacherstrasse 124, Basel, Switzerland, CH-4070
    Public contact
    F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 41 616878333, global.trial_information@roche.com
    Scientific contact
    F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., 41 616878333, global.trial_information@roche.com
    Paediatric regulatory details
    Is trial part of an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP)
    No
    Does article 45 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial?
    No
    Does article 46 of REGULATION (EC) No 1901/2006 apply to this trial?
    No
    Results analysis stage
    Analysis stage
    Final
    Date of interim/final analysis
    19 Mar 2020
    Is this the analysis of the primary completion data?
    Yes
    Primary completion date
    19 Feb 2020
    Global end of trial reached?
    Yes
    Global end of trial date
    19 Mar 2020
    Was the trial ended prematurely?
    No
    General information about the trial
    Main objective of the trial
    -To evaluate the efficacy of etrolizumab (105 mg SC every 4 weeks [Q4W]) compared with placebo for the induction of remission in TNF-naive patients with ulcerative colitis as determined by the Mayo Clinic Score at Week 10
    Protection of trial subjects
    This study was conducted in full conformance with the ICH E6 guideline for Good Clinical Practice and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki or the laws and regulations of the country in which the research is conducted, whichever afforded the greater protection to the individual. All subjects signed an informed consent form before participating in the study.
    Background therapy
    During the induction phase (Day 1 to Week 10), continuation of stable baseline doses of the following non-investigational medicinal products were permitted: oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA); azathioprine; 6-mercaptopurine; methotrexate; corticosteroids up to 30 milligrams per day (mg/day) of prednisone (or equivalent); and budesonide up to 9 mg/day. From Week 10 to Week 14, subjects who achieved clinical remission at Week 10 were to continue immunosuppressants (AZA, 6-MP, MTX) at a stable dose unless dose reduction or discontinuation was required due to immunosuppressant-related toxicity. For subjects who stayed in the study, corticosteroids were to be tapered starting from Week 10 in those who achieved clinical remission. Throughout the study, probiotics and oral 5-ASA may have been continued at a stable dose. Occasional use of NSAIDs and acetaminophen (e.g., for headache, arthritis, myalgias, menstrual cramps) and aspirin up to 325 mg daily were permitted throughout the study. Antidiarrheals (e.g., loperamide, diphenoxylate with atropine) for control of chronic diarrhea were permitted throughout the study.
    Evidence for comparator
    -
    Actual start date of recruitment
    04 Nov 2014
    Long term follow-up planned
    No
    Independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) involvement?
    Yes
    Population of trial subjects
    Number of subjects enrolled per country
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Australia: 15
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Brazil: 36
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Hong Kong: 1
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Argentina: 1
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Mexico: 4
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Russian Federation: 57
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Serbia: 33
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Ukraine: 68
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    United States: 12
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Bulgaria: 5
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Estonia: 15
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    France: 3
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Poland: 79
    Country: Number of subjects enrolled
    Slovakia: 29
    Worldwide total number of subjects
    358
    EEA total number of subjects
    131
    Number of subjects enrolled per age group
    In utero
    0
    Preterm newborn - gestational age < 37 wk
    0
    Newborns (0-27 days)
    0
    Infants and toddlers (28 days-23 months)
    0
    Children (2-11 years)
    0
    Adolescents (12-17 years)
    0
    Adults (18-64 years)
    337
    From 65 to 84 years
    21
    85 years and over
    0

    Subject disposition

    Close Top of page
    Recruitment
    Recruitment details
    -

    Pre-assignment
    Screening details
    Subjects on concomitant background therapy were allowed to continue receiving stable baseline doses of the following non-investigational medicinal products during the study: oral 5-ASA; azathioprine; 6-mercaptopurine; methotrexate; corticosteroids up to 30 mg/day of prednisone (or equivalent); and/or budesonide up to 9 mg/day.

    Period 1
    Period 1 title
    Overall Study (overall period)
    Is this the baseline period?
    Yes
    Allocation method
    Randomised - controlled
    Blinding used
    Double blind
    Roles blinded
    Subject, Investigator

    Arms
    Are arms mutually exclusive
    Yes

    Arm title
    Placebo
    Arm description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive placebo matching to etrolizumab subcutaneously (SC) once every 4 weeks (Q4W) up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).
    Arm type
    Placebo

    Investigational medicinal product name
    Etrolizumab Placebo
    Investigational medicinal product code
    Other name
    Pharmaceutical forms
    Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
    Routes of administration
    Subcutaneous use
    Dosage and administration details
    The placebo matching to etrolizumab was supplied in a pre-filled syringe and was administered as an SC injection once every 4 weeks up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Investigational medicinal product name
    Adalimumab Placebo
    Investigational medicinal product code
    Other name
    Pharmaceutical forms
    Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
    Routes of administration
    Subcutaneous use
    Dosage and administration details
    The placebo matching to adalimumab was supplied in a pre-filled syringe and was administered as an SC injection once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Arm title
    Adalimumab
    Arm description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive adalimumab subcutaneously (SC) Q2W up to Week 8 (160 mg at Week 0 [Day 1], 80 mg at Week 2, 40 mg at Weeks 4, 6, and 8) and placebo matching to etrolizumab SC Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).
    Arm type
    Active comparator

    Investigational medicinal product name
    Adalimumab
    Investigational medicinal product code
    Other name
    Humira
    Pharmaceutical forms
    Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
    Routes of administration
    Subcutaneous use
    Dosage and administration details
    Adalimumab was supplied in a pre-filled syringe and was administered as an SC injection once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8). Adalimumab was to be administered at a dose of 160 milligrams (mg) at Week 0 (Day 1; 4 injections), 80 mg at Week 2 (2 injections), and 40 mg (1 injection) at Weeks 4, 6, and 8.

    Investigational medicinal product name
    Etrolizumab Placebo
    Investigational medicinal product code
    Other name
    Pharmaceutical forms
    Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
    Routes of administration
    Subcutaneous use
    Dosage and administration details
    The placebo matching to etrolizumab was supplied in a pre-filled syringe and was administered as an SC injection once every 4 weeks up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Arm title
    Etrolizumab
    Arm description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive etrolizumab 105 mg subcutaneously (SC) Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC Q2W up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).
    Arm type
    Experimental

    Investigational medicinal product name
    Adalimumab Placebo
    Investigational medicinal product code
    Other name
    Pharmaceutical forms
    Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
    Routes of administration
    Subcutaneous use
    Dosage and administration details
    The placebo matching to adalimumab was supplied in a pre-filled syringe and was administered as an SC injection once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Investigational medicinal product name
    Etrolizumab
    Investigational medicinal product code
    RO5490261
    Other name
    PRO145223
    Pharmaceutical forms
    Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
    Routes of administration
    Subcutaneous use
    Dosage and administration details
    Etrolizumab was supplied in a pre-filled syringe and was administered as an SC injection at a dose of 105 mg once every 4 weeks up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Number of subjects in period 1
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Started
    72
    142
    144
    Completed Week 10
    71
    141
    143
    Completed
    71
    137
    141
    Not completed
    1
    5
    3
         Adverse event, serious fatal
    -
    -
    1
         Adverse event, non-fatal
    -
    -
    1
         Consent withdrawn by subject
    1
    5
    1

    Baseline characteristics

    Close Top of page
    Baseline characteristics reporting groups
    Reporting group title
    Placebo
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive placebo matching to etrolizumab subcutaneously (SC) once every 4 weeks (Q4W) up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Reporting group title
    Adalimumab
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive adalimumab subcutaneously (SC) Q2W up to Week 8 (160 mg at Week 0 [Day 1], 80 mg at Week 2, 40 mg at Weeks 4, 6, and 8) and placebo matching to etrolizumab SC Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Reporting group title
    Etrolizumab
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive etrolizumab 105 mg subcutaneously (SC) Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC Q2W up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Reporting group values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab Total
    Number of subjects
    72 142 144 358
    Age categorical
    Units: Subjects
        In utero
    0 0 0 0
        Preterm newborn infants (gestational age < 37 wks)
    0 0 0 0
        Newborns (0-27 days)
    0 0 0 0
        Infants and toddlers (28 days-23 months)
    0 0 0 0
        Children (2-11 years)
    0 0 0 0
        Adolescents (12-17 years)
    0 0 0 0
        Adults (18-64 years)
    69 133 135 337
        From 65-84 years
    3 9 9 21
        85 years and over
    0 0 0 0
    Age Continuous
    Units: Years
        arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
    38.4 ± 13.3 42.0 ± 13.8 40.1 ± 13.4 -
    Sex: Female, Male
    Units: Participants
        Female
    33 60 70 163
        Male
    39 82 74 195
    Race/Ethnicity, Customized
    Units: Subjects
        Asian
    0 2 0 2
        Black or African American
    2 0 1 3
        White
    68 130 138 336
        Other
    2 10 5 17
    Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
    Units: Subjects
        Hispanic or Latino
    8 16 14 38
        Not Hispanic or Latino
    63 123 128 314
        Unknown or Not Reported
    1 3 2 6
    Disease Location
    Units: Subjects
        Left-Sided Colitis
    44 84 89 217
        Extensive Colitis
    10 23 22 55
        Pancolitis
    18 35 33 86
    Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ≤9 or ≥10 at Baseline
    Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids (yes/no) at randomization, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (yes/no) at randomization, and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10). The MCS ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
    Units: Subjects
        MCS ≤9
    47 96 100 243
        MCS ≥10
    25 46 44 115
    Baseline Treatment: None, Corticosteroids (CS) or Immunosuppressants (IS) Alone, or Both CS and IS
    Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids (yes/no) at randomization, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (yes/no) at randomization, and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10).
    Units: Subjects
        None
    24 51 45 120
        Corticosteroids (CS) Alone
    25 46 50 121
        Immunosuppressants (IS) Alone
    15 30 32 77
        Both CS and IS
    8 15 17 40
    Nancy Histological Index (NHI) Score of ≤1 or >1, or Missing, at Baseline
    Histologic disease activity was measured using the Nancy Histological Index (NHI) score, ranging from 0 to 4, with the following definitions for each grade: 0 is no histologically significant disease; 1 is chronic inflammatory infiltrate with no acute inflammatory infiltrate; and 2, 3, and 4 are mildly, moderately, and severely active disease, respectively.
    Units: Subjects
        NHI Score ≤1
    8 15 15 38
        NHI Score >1
    62 116 120 298
        Missing
    2 11 9 22
    Subject analysis sets

    Subject analysis set title
    Placebo - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Subject analysis set type
    Modified intention-to-treat
    Subject analysis set description
    The overall number of participants (144) in this analysis set represents the total number enrolled (72) in the placebo arm of this study, GA28948 (2013-004279-11), plus the total number enrolled (72) in the placebo arm of a second study of identical design, GA28949 (2013-004277-27). The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive placebo matching to etrolizumab subcutaneously (SC) once every 4 weeks (Q4W) up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Subject analysis set title
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Subject analysis set type
    Modified intention-to-treat
    Subject analysis set description
    The overall number of participants (285) in this analysis set represents the total number enrolled (142) in the adalimumab arm of this study, GA28948 (2013-004279-11), plus the total number enrolled (143) in the adalimumab arm of a second study of identical design, GA28949 (2013-004277-27). The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive adalimumab subcutaneously (SC) Q2W up to Week 8 (160 mg at Week 0 [Day 1], 80 mg at Week 2, 40 mg at Weeks 4, 6, and 8) and placebo matching to etrolizumab SC Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Subject analysis set title
    Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Subject analysis set type
    Modified intention-to-treat
    Subject analysis set description
    The overall number of participants (287) in this analysis set represents the total number enrolled (144) in the etrolizumab arm of this study, GA28948 (2013-004279-11), plus the total number enrolled (143) in the etrolizumab arm of a second study of identical design, GA28949 (2013-004277-27). The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive etrolizumab 105 mg subcutaneously (SC) Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC Q2W up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Subject analysis sets values
    Placebo - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects
    144
    285
    287
    Age categorical
    Units: Subjects
        In utero
    0
    0
    0
        Preterm newborn infants (gestational age < 37 wks)
    0
    0
    0
        Newborns (0-27 days)
    0
    0
    0
        Infants and toddlers (28 days-23 months)
    0
    0
    0
        Children (2-11 years)
    0
    0
    0
        Adolescents (12-17 years)
    0
    0
    0
        Adults (18-64 years)
    139
    272
    270
        From 65-84 years
    5
    13
    17
        85 years and over
    0
    0
    0
    Age Continuous
    Units: Years
        arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
    39.4 ± 12.9
    40.8 ± 13.2
    40.6 ± 13.9
    Sex: Female, Male
    Units: Participants
        Female
    67
    122
    129
        Male
    77
    163
    158
    Race/Ethnicity, Customized
    Units: Subjects
        Asian
    4
    6
    4
        Black or African American
    3
    4
    2
        White
    133
    261
    271
        Other
    4
    14
    10
    Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
    Units: Subjects
        Hispanic or Latino
    13
    27
    26
        Not Hispanic or Latino
    130
    253
    256
        Unknown or Not Reported
    1
    5
    5
    Disease Location
    Units: Subjects
        Left-Sided Colitis
    92
    170
    175
        Extensive Colitis
    17
    36
    33
        Pancolitis
    35
    79
    79
    Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ≤9 or ≥10 at Baseline
    Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids (yes/no) at randomization, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (yes/no) at randomization, and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10). The MCS ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
    Units: Subjects
        MCS ≤9
    93
    192
    196
        MCS ≥10
    51
    93
    91
    Baseline Treatment: None, Corticosteroids (CS) or Immunosuppressants (IS) Alone, or Both CS and IS
    Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids (yes/no) at randomization, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (yes/no) at randomization, and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10).
    Units: Subjects
        None
    51
    104
    100
        Corticosteroids (CS) Alone
    48
    88
    90
        Immunosuppressants (IS) Alone
    29
    58
    60
        Both CS and IS
    16
    35
    37
    Nancy Histological Index (NHI) Score of ≤1 or >1, or Missing, at Baseline
    Histologic disease activity was measured using the Nancy Histological Index (NHI) score, ranging from 0 to 4, with the following definitions for each grade: 0 is no histologically significant disease; 1 is chronic inflammatory infiltrate with no acute inflammatory infiltrate; and 2, 3, and 4 are mildly, moderately, and severely active disease, respectively.
    Units: Subjects
        NHI Score ≤1
    17
    38
    36
        NHI Score >1
    124
    230
    228
        Missing
    3
    17
    23

    End points

    Close Top of page
    End points reporting groups
    Reporting group title
    Placebo
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive placebo matching to etrolizumab subcutaneously (SC) once every 4 weeks (Q4W) up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Reporting group title
    Adalimumab
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive adalimumab subcutaneously (SC) Q2W up to Week 8 (160 mg at Week 0 [Day 1], 80 mg at Week 2, 40 mg at Weeks 4, 6, and 8) and placebo matching to etrolizumab SC Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Reporting group title
    Etrolizumab
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive etrolizumab 105 mg subcutaneously (SC) Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC Q2W up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Subject analysis set title
    Placebo - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Subject analysis set type
    Modified intention-to-treat
    Subject analysis set description
    The overall number of participants (144) in this analysis set represents the total number enrolled (72) in the placebo arm of this study, GA28948 (2013-004279-11), plus the total number enrolled (72) in the placebo arm of a second study of identical design, GA28949 (2013-004277-27). The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive placebo matching to etrolizumab subcutaneously (SC) once every 4 weeks (Q4W) up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Subject analysis set title
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Subject analysis set type
    Modified intention-to-treat
    Subject analysis set description
    The overall number of participants (285) in this analysis set represents the total number enrolled (142) in the adalimumab arm of this study, GA28948 (2013-004279-11), plus the total number enrolled (143) in the adalimumab arm of a second study of identical design, GA28949 (2013-004277-27). The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive adalimumab subcutaneously (SC) Q2W up to Week 8 (160 mg at Week 0 [Day 1], 80 mg at Week 2, 40 mg at Weeks 4, 6, and 8) and placebo matching to etrolizumab SC Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Subject analysis set title
    Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Subject analysis set type
    Modified intention-to-treat
    Subject analysis set description
    The overall number of participants (287) in this analysis set represents the total number enrolled (144) in the etrolizumab arm of this study, GA28948 (2013-004279-11), plus the total number enrolled (143) in the etrolizumab arm of a second study of identical design, GA28949 (2013-004277-27). The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive etrolizumab 105 mg subcutaneously (SC) Q4W up to Week 12 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC Q2W up to Week 8 (at Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Primary: Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Placebo, as Determined by the Mayo Clinic Score (MCS), GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Placebo, as Determined by the Mayo Clinic Score (MCS), GA28948 Population [1]
    End point description
    The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Remission was defined as MCS less than or equal to (≤)2 with individual subscores ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. Participants were also classified as non-remitters if Week 10 assessments were missing or if they had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment. Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10); the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted the difference in remission rates and associated 95% confidence interval for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Primary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    Notes
    [1] - The end point is not reporting statistics for all the arms in the baseline period. It is expected all the baseline period arms will be reported on when providing values for an end point on the baseline period.
    Justification: The primary outcome measure only compared remission rates between the etrolizumab and placebo arms.
    End point values
    Placebo Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    144
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    6.9 (3.00 to 15.25)
    19.4 (13.81 to 26.67)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etrolizumab vs. Placebo: Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    The null hypothesis (H0): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was the same in both the placebo and etrolizumab arms. The alternative hypothesis (H1): the percentage of participants achieving remission at Week 10 was not the same in the placebo and etrolizumab arms.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [2]
    P-value
    = 0.0173 [3]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    12.3
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    1.59
         upper limit
    20.6
    Notes
    [2] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.
    [3] - The threshold for statistical significance was a p-value <0.05.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population [4]
    End point description
    The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Remission was defined as MCS less than or equal to (≤)2 with individual subscores ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. Participants were also classified as non-remitters if Week 10 assessments were missing or if they had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment. Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted the difference in remission rates and associated 95% confidence interval for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    Notes
    [4] - The end point is not reporting statistics for all the arms in the baseline period. It is expected all the baseline period arms will be reported on when providing values for an end point on the baseline period.
    Justification: This secondary outcome measure of participants in remission only compared remission rates between the etrolizumab and adalimumab arms.
    End point values
    Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    142
    144
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    22.5 (16.44 to 30.08)
    19.4 (13.81 to 26.67)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etrolizumab vs. Adalimumab: Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [5]
    P-value
    = 0.5055 [6]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    -3.1
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -12.61
         upper limit
    6.37
    Notes
    [5] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [6] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Remission was defined as MCS less than or equal to (≤)2 with individual subscores ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. Participants were also classified as non-remitters if Week 10 assessments were missing or if they had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment. Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted the difference in remission rates and associated 95% confidence interval for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    285
    287
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    23.5 (18.96 to 28.76)
    18.8 (14.72 to 23.74)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro. vs. Ada. (Pooled): Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    572
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [7]
    P-value
    = 1 [8]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    -5
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -11.66
         upper limit
    1.75
    Notes
    [7] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [8] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants With Clinical Response at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants With Clinical Response at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Clinical Response was defined as: MCS ≥3-point decrease and 30% reduction from baseline as well as ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or an absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1. Non-responders also included participants with missing Week 10 assessments or those who had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment. Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9 or ≥10); the CMH test adjusted the differences in response rates and associated 95% CIs for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    50.0 (38.75 to 61.25)
    52.1 (43.95 to 60.16)
    56.9 (48.78 to 64.75)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: Clinical Response at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [9]
    P-value
    = 0.4434 [10]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Response Rates
    Point estimate
    6.9
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -7.03
         upper limit
    20.62
    Notes
    [9] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.
    [10] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Adalimumab: Clinical Response at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [11]
    P-value
    = 0.4122 [12]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Response Rates
    Point estimate
    4.8
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -6.72
         upper limit
    16.07
    Notes
    [11] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [12] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants With Clinical Response at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants With Clinical Response at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Clinical Response was defined as: MCS ≥3-point decrease and 30% reduction from baseline as well as ≥1-point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or an absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1. Non-responders also included participants with missing Week 10 assessments or those who had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment. Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9 or ≥10); the CMH test adjusted the differences in response rates and associated 95% CIs for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    285
    287
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    53.3 (47.54 to 59.04)
    54.7 (48.92 to 60.36)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): Clinical Response
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    572
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [13]
    P-value
    = 1 [14]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Response Rates
    Point estimate
    1.2
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -6.98
         upper limit
    9.26
    Notes
    [13] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [14] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants With Improvement in Endoscopic Appearance of the Mucosa at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants With Improvement in Endoscopic Appearance of the Mucosa at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    Improvement in endoscopic appearance of the mucosa was defined as a Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) endoscopy subscore ≤1. Blinded gastroenterologists experienced in inflammatory bowel disease performed central reading of endoscopies at an independent review facility. The rectum, sigmoid, and descending colon segments were assessed and each segment was assigned a score of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. At baseline all segments were reviewed and the worst score from the three segments was recorded as the endoscopy subscore. Post-baseline the endoscopy score was the worst score of all segments that had been assessed at baseline, if the baseline endoscopy score had a sigmoid colon score ≤1. If at baseline the sigmoid colon score was ≥2, the post-baseline endoscopy score was the sigmoid colon score value. Non-responders also included participants with missing Week 10 assessments or those who had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    22.2 (14.17 to 33.09)
    33.1 (25.89 to 41.19)
    40.3 (32.62 to 48.44)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: Endoscopic Appearance at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 1 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [15]
    P-value
    = 0.0173 [16]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Response Rates
    Point estimate
    17.9
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    4.49
         upper limit
    29.5
    Notes
    [15] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.
    [16] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: Endoscopic Appearance at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [17]
    P-value
    = 0.1886 [18]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Response Rates
    Point estimate
    7.4
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -3.77
         upper limit
    18.32
    Notes
    [17] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [18] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants With Improvement in Endoscopic Appearance of the Mucosa at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants With Improvement in Endoscopic Appearance of the Mucosa at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    Improvement in endoscopic appearance of the mucosa was defined as a Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) endoscopy subscore ≤1. Blinded gastroenterologists experienced in inflammatory bowel disease performed central reading of endoscopies at an independent review facility. The rectum, sigmoid, and descending colon segments were assessed and each segment was assigned a score of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. At baseline all segments were reviewed and the worst score from the three segments was recorded as the endoscopy subscore. Post-baseline the endoscopy score was the worst score of all segments that had been assessed at baseline, if the baseline endoscopy score had a sigmoid colon score ≤1. If at baseline the sigmoid colon score was ≥2, the post-baseline endoscopy score was the sigmoid colon score value. Non-responders also included participants with missing Week 10 assessments or those who had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    285
    287
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    37.9 (32.46 to 43.65)
    40.1 (34.57 to 45.83)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): Endoscopic Appearance
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 3 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    572
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [19]
    P-value
    = 1 [20]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Response Rates
    Point estimate
    1.9
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -6.04
         upper limit
    9.88
    Notes
    [19] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in response rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [20] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants in Endoscopic Remission at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants in Endoscopic Remission at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    Endoscopic remission was defined as a Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) endoscopy subscore of 0. Blinded gastroenterologists experienced in inflammatory bowel disease performed central reading of endoscopies at an independent review facility. The rectum, sigmoid, and descending colon segments were assessed and each segment was assigned a score of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. At baseline all segments were reviewed and the worst score from the three segments was recorded as the endoscopy subscore. Post-baseline the endoscopy score was the worst score of all segments that had been assessed at baseline, if the baseline endoscopy score had a sigmoid colon score ≤1. If at baseline the sigmoid colon score was ≥2, the post-baseline endoscopy score was the sigmoid colon score value. Non-responders also included participants with missing Week 10 assessments or those who had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    6.9 (3.00 to 15.25)
    20.4 (14.61 to 27.79)
    20.8 (15.00 to 28.18)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: Endoscopic Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [21]
    P-value
    = 0.1347 [22]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    13.8
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    2.97
         upper limit
    22.15
    Notes
    [21] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.
    [22] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: Endoscopic Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [23]
    P-value
    = 0.9138 [24]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    0.5
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -8.95
         upper limit
    9.92
    Notes
    [23] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [24] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants in Endoscopic Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants in Endoscopic Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the MCS Endoscopy Subscore, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    Endoscopic remission was defined as a Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) endoscopy subscore of 0. Blinded gastroenterologists experienced in inflammatory bowel disease performed central reading of endoscopies at an independent review facility. The rectum, sigmoid, and descending colon segments were assessed and each segment was assigned a score of 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. At baseline all segments were reviewed and the worst score from the three segments was recorded as the endoscopy subscore. Post-baseline the endoscopy score was the worst score of all segments that had been assessed at baseline, if the baseline endoscopy score had a sigmoid colon score ≤1. If at baseline the sigmoid colon score was ≥2, the post-baseline endoscopy score was the sigmoid colon score value. Non-responders also included participants with missing Week 10 assessments or those who had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    285
    287
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    23.5 (18.96 to 28.76)
    20.2 (15.97 to 25.23)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): Endoscopic Remission
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    572
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [25]
    P-value
    = 1 [26]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    -3.5
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -10.27
         upper limit
    3.3
    Notes
    [25] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [26] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants With Histologic Remission at Week 10, as Determined by the Nancy Histological Index, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants With Histologic Remission at Week 10, as Determined by the Nancy Histological Index, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    Histologic remission is defined by the resolution of neutrophilic inflammation (e.g., absence of neutrophils in the crypts and lamina propria), defined by a Nancy Histological Index (NHI) score of ≤1. The NHI score ranges from 0 to 4, with the following definitions for each grade: 0 is no histologically significant disease; 1 is chronic inflammatory infiltrate with no acute inflammatory infiltrate; and 2, 3, and 4 are mildly, moderately, and severely active disease, respectively. A small pool of central readers who were blinded to both treatment arm and timepoint performed the histologic scoring. The same reader scored all slides for a given participant based on biopsies from the most inflamed region of the sigmoid colon. Participants were also classified as non-remitters if Week 10 assessments were missing or if they had received rescue therapy prior to assessment. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted the difference in remission rates and 95% CI for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    62 [27]
    116 [28]
    120 [29]
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    16.1 (9.00 to 27.21)
    29.3 (21.80 to 38.15)
    42.5 (34.02 to 51.44)
    Notes
    [27] - All subjects in study GA28948 who had ≥1 dose of study drug and NHI score >1 at baseline
    [28] - All subjects in study GA28948 who had ≥1 dose of study drug and NHI score >1 at baseline
    [29] - All subjects in study GA28948 who had ≥1 dose of study drug and NHI score >1 at baseline
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: Histologic Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    182
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [30]
    P-value
    = 0.0173 [31]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    26.3
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    12.1
         upper limit
    37.86
    Notes
    [30] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.
    [31] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: Histologic Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    236
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [32]
    P-value
    = 0.0313 [33]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    13.2
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    0.93
         upper limit
    24.94
    Notes
    [32] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [33] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants With Histologic Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the Nancy Histological Index, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants With Histologic Remission at Week 10 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, as Determined by the Nancy Histological Index, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    Histologic remission is defined by the resolution of neutrophilic inflammation (e.g., absence of neutrophils in the crypts and lamina propria), defined by a Nancy Histological Index (NHI) score of ≤1. The NHI score ranges from 0 to 4, with the following definitions for each grade: 0 is no histologically significant disease; 1 is chronic inflammatory infiltrate with no acute inflammatory infiltrate; and 2, 3, and 4 are mildly, moderately, and severely active disease, respectively. A small pool of central readers who were blinded to both treatment arm and timepoint performed the histologic scoring. The same reader scored all slides for a given participant based on biopsies from the most inflamed region of the sigmoid colon. Participants were also classified as non-remitters if Week 10 assessments were missing or if they had received rescue therapy prior to assessment. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted the difference in remission rates and 95% CI for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    230 [34]
    228 [35]
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    36.5 (30.57 to 42.92)
    36.8 (30.85 to 43.27)
    Notes
    [34] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 who had ≥1 dose of study drug and NHI score >1 at baseline
    [35] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 who had ≥1 dose of study drug and NHI score >1 at baseline
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): Histologic Remission
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    458
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [36]
    P-value
    = 1 [37]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    -0.3
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -9.13
         upper limit
    8.45
    Notes
    [36] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [37] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change from Baseline in the MCS Rectal Bleeding Subscore at Week 6, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change from Baseline in the MCS Rectal Bleeding Subscore at Week 6, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    Rectal bleeding data were collected via the participant’s diaries and each day a participant provided a score from 0 to 3 according to the following definitions: 0 = no blood in the stool; 1 = streaks of blood with stool less than half the time; 2 = obvious blood with stool most of the time; 3 = blood alone passed. The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) rectal bleeding subscore was calculated as the worst value of three days of daily diary scores closest to anchor dates at baseline and post-baseline. The data was considered non-parametric and was reported using RANK analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10); the model adjusted for these stratification factors along with the baseline rectal bleeding (RB) subscore.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 6
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Score on a scale
        median (inter-quartile range (Q1-Q3))
    -1.0 (-1.0 to 0.0)
    -1.0 (-2.0 to 0.0)
    -1.0 (-2.0 to 0.0)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: MCS Rectal Bleeding at Week 6
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [38]
    P-value
    = 0.4434 [39]
    Method
    Rank ANCOVA
    Confidence interval
    Notes
    [38] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.
    [39] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: MCS Rectal Bleeding at Week 6
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [40]
    P-value
    = 0.3374 [41]
    Method
    Rank ANCOVA
    Confidence interval
    Notes
    [40] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.
    [41] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change from Baseline in the MCS Rectal Bleeding Subscore at Week 6 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change from Baseline in the MCS Rectal Bleeding Subscore at Week 6 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    Rectal bleeding data were collected via the participant’s diaries and each day a participant provided a score from 0 to 3 according to the following definitions: 0 = no blood in the stool; 1 = streaks of blood with stool less than half the time; 2 = obvious blood with stool most of the time; 3 = blood alone passed. The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) rectal bleeding subscore was calculated as the worst value of three days of daily diary scores closest to anchor dates at baseline and post-baseline. The data was considered non-parametric and was reported using RANK analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10); the model adjusted for these stratification factors along with the baseline rectal bleeding (RB) subscore.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 6
    End point values
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    285
    287
    Units: Score on a scale
        median (inter-quartile range (Q1-Q3))
    -1.0 (-2.0 to 0.0)
    -1.0 (-2.0 to 0.0)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): MCS Rectal Bleeding
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    572
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [42]
    P-value
    = 1 [43]
    Method
    Rank ANCOVA
    Confidence interval
    Notes
    [42] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and RB score at BL.
    [43] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change from Baseline in the MCS Stool Frequency Subscore at Week 6, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change from Baseline in the MCS Stool Frequency Subscore at Week 6, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    Stool frequency data were collected via the participant’s diaries and each day a participant provided a score from 0 to 3 according to the following definitions: 0 = normal number of stools; 1 = 1 to 2 more stools than normal; 2 = 3 to 4 more stools than normal; 3 = 5 or more stools than normal. The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) stool frequency subscore was calculated as the average of three days daily diary scores closest to anchor dates at baseline and post-baseline. The data was considered non-parametric and was reported using RANK analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10); the model adjusted for these stratification factors along with the baseline stool frequency (SF) subscore.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 6
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Score on a scale
        median (inter-quartile range (Q1-Q3))
    0.0 (-1.0 to 0.0)
    -1.0 (-2.0 to 0.0)
    -1.0 (-2.0 to 0.0)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: MCS Stool Frequency at Week 6
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 2 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [44]
    P-value
    = 0.4434 [45]
    Method
    Rank ANCOVA
    Confidence interval
    Notes
    [44] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.
    [45] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: MCS Stool Frequency at Week 6
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [46]
    P-value
    = 0.6367 [47]
    Method
    Rank ANCOVA
    Confidence interval
    Notes
    [46] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.
    [47] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change from Baseline in the MCS Stool Frequency Subscore at Week 6 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change from Baseline in the MCS Stool Frequency Subscore at Week 6 With Etrolizumab as Compared With Adalimumab, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    Stool frequency data were collected via the participant’s diaries and each day a participant provided a score from 0 to 3 according to the following definitions: 0 = normal number of stools; 1 = 1 to 2 more stools than normal; 2 = 3 to 4 more stools than normal; 3 = 5 or more stools than normal. The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) stool frequency subscore was calculated as the average of three days daily diary scores closest to anchor dates at baseline and post-baseline. The data was considered non-parametric and was reported using RANK analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10); the model adjusted for these stratification factors along with the baseline stool frequency (SF) subscore.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 6
    End point values
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    285
    287
    Units: Score on a scale
        median (inter-quartile range (Q1-Q3))
    -1.0 (-1.0 to 0.0)
    -1.0 (-1.0 to 0.0)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): MCS Stool Frequency
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 5 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    572
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [48]
    P-value
    = 1 [49]
    Method
    Rank ANCOVA
    Confidence interval
    Notes
    [48] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and SF score at BL.
    [49] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis (UC) Bowel Movement Signs and Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC Patient-Reported Outcome Signs and Symptoms (UC-PRO/SS), GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis (UC) Bowel Movement Signs and Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC Patient-Reported Outcome Signs and Symptoms (UC-PRO/SS), GA28948 Population
    End point description
    The UC-PRO/SS questionnaire was collected in the e-diary and completed by participants for at least 9 to 12 consecutive days prior to a study visit. The bowel movement domain score ranges from 0 to 27, with a higher score indicating a worse disease state. The most recent 7 daily scores available (not including the visit) were selected for the calculation of the visit score. For each item in the questionnaire, a score was calculated for a visit by taking the average of the selected daily scores. The domain score for a visit was calculated as the sum of the averaged items for each question. A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis of the data included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, study stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariates of the baseline UC-PRO/SS domain and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-patient errors within the MMRM.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    50 [50]
    106 [51]
    117 [52]
    Units: Score on a scale
        least squares mean (standard error)
    -5.5 ± 0.7
    -5.7 ± 0.5
    -6.2 ± 0.5
    Notes
    [50] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [51] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [52] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: UC Bowel Movement SS at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    167
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [53]
    P-value
    = 0.3708 [54]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -0.7
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -2.4
         upper limit
    0.9
    Notes
    [53] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.
    [54] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: UC Bowel Movement SS at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    223
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [55]
    P-value
    = 0.4477 [56]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -0.5
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -1.8
         upper limit
    0.8
    Notes
    [55] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.
    [56] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis Bowel Movement Signs and Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC-PRO/SS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis Bowel Movement Signs and Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC-PRO/SS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    The UC-PRO/SS questionnaire was collected in the e-diary and completed by participants for at least 9 to 12 consecutive days prior to a study visit. The bowel movement domain score ranges from 0 to 27, with a higher score indicating a worse disease state. The most recent 7 daily scores available (not including the visit) were selected for the calculation of the visit score. For each item in the questionnaire, a score was calculated for a visit by taking the average of the selected daily scores. The domain score for a visit was calculated as the sum of the averaged items for each question. A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis of the data included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, study stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariates of the baseline UC-PRO/SS domain and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-patient errors within the MMRM.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    109 [57]
    217 [58]
    225 [59]
    Units: Score on a scale
        least squares mean (standard error)
    -5.0 ± 0.5
    -5.8 ± 0.4
    -6.0 ± 0.3
    Notes
    [57] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [58] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [59] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Pbo (Pooled): UC Bowel Movement SS
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    334
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [60]
    P-value
    = 1 [61]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -1
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -2.1
         upper limit
    0.2
    Notes
    [60] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.
    [61] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): UC Bowel Movement SS
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    442
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [62]
    P-value
    = 1 [63]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -0.3
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -1.2
         upper limit
    0.7
    Notes
    [62] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.
    [63] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis Functional Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC-PRO/SS, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis Functional Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC-PRO/SS, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    The UC-PRO/SS questionnaire was collected in the e-diary and completed by participants for at least 9 to 12 consecutive days prior to a study visit. The functional symptoms domain score ranges from 0 to 12, with a higher score indicating a worse disease state. The most recent 7 daily scores available (not including the visit) were selected for the calculation of the visit score. For each item in the questionnaire, a score was calculated for a visit by taking the average of the selected daily scores. The domain score for a visit was calculated as the sum of the averaged items for each question. A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis of the data included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, study stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariates of the baseline UC-PRO/SS domain and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-patient errors in the MMRM.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    50 [64]
    106 [65]
    117 [66]
    Units: Score on a scale
        least squares mean (standard error)
    -1.7 ± 0.3
    -1.5 ± 0.2
    -1.9 ± 0.2
    Notes
    [64] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [65] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [66] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: UC Functional SS at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    167
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [67]
    P-value
    = 0.6356 [68]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -0.2
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -0.9
         upper limit
    0.5
    Notes
    [67] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.
    [68] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: UC Functional SS at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    223
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [69]
    P-value
    = 0.1253 [70]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -0.4
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -1
         upper limit
    0.1
    Notes
    [69] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.
    [70] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis Functional Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC-PRO/SS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change From Baseline in Ulcerative Colitis Functional Symptoms at Week 10, as Assessed by the UC-PRO/SS, GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    End point description
    The UC-PRO/SS questionnaire was collected in the e-diary and completed by participants for at least 9 to 12 consecutive days prior to a study visit. The functional symptoms domain score ranges from 0 to 12, with a higher score indicating a worse disease state. The most recent 7 daily scores available (not including the visit) were selected for the calculation of the visit score. For each item in the questionnaire, a score was calculated for a visit by taking the average of the selected daily scores. The domain score for a visit was calculated as the sum of the averaged items for each question. A Mixed Model for Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis of the data included the fixed categorical effects of treatment, visit, study stratification factors, and treatment-by-visit interaction, and the continuous covariates of the baseline UC-PRO/SS domain and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit interaction. An unstructured covariance matrix was used to model the within-patient errors in the MMRM.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects analysed
    109 [71]
    217 [72]
    225 [73]
    Units: Score on a scale
        least squares mean (standard error)
    -1.4 ± 0.2
    -1.6 ± 0.2
    -1.9 ± 0.2
    Notes
    [71] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [72] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [73] - All subjects in studies GA28948 & GA28949 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Pbo (Pooled): UC Functional SS
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 4 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    334
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [74]
    P-value
    = 1 [75]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -0.5
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -1
         upper limit
    0
    Notes
    [74] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.
    [75] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada (Pooled): UC Functional SS
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. This comparison was part of Family 6 of the testing procedure; please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population v Etrolizumab - GA28948 & GA28949 Pooled Population
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    442
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [76]
    P-value
    = 1 [77]
    Method
    Mixed Model for Repeated Measures
    Parameter type
    Mean difference (net)
    Point estimate
    -0.3
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -0.7
         upper limit
    0.1
    Notes
    [76] - Model adjusted for treatment, visit, stratification factors, treatment-by-visit, baseline UC-PRO/SS domain, and baseline UC-PRO/SS domain-by-visit. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.
    [77] - p-value has been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants in Clinical Remission at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants in Clinical Remission at Week 10, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Clinical remission was defined as MCS less than or equal to (≤)2 with individual subscores ≤1. Participants were also classified as non-remitters if Week 10 assessments were missing or if they had received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment. Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted the differences in remission rates and associated 95% confidence intervals for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    8.3 (3.88 to 17.01)
    23.9 (17.67 to 31.59)
    19.4 (13.81 to 26.67)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: Clinical Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [78]
    P-value
    = 0.0364 [79]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    10.9
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -0.08
         upper limit
    19.48
    Notes
    [78] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.
    [79] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Adalimumab: Clinical Remission at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [80]
    P-value
    = 0.3383 [81]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    -4.5
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -14.1
         upper limit
    5.07
    Notes
    [80] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [81] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 and Week 14, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Percentage of Participants in Remission at Week 10 and Week 14, as Determined by the MCS, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    The Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) ranges from 0 to 12 and is a composite of the four following assessments of disease activity: stool frequency subscore, rectal bleeding subscore, endoscopy subscore, and physician's global assessment (PGA) subscore. Each of the four assessments was rated with a score from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Remission was defined as MCS less than or equal to (≤)2 with individual subscores ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. Participants were also classified as non-remitters if Week 10 or 14 assessments were missing or the participant received permitted/prohibited rescue therapy prior to assessment. Participants were stratified by concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening (MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10). The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test adjusted the differences in remission rates and associated 95% confidence intervals for the stratification factors.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Weeks 10 and 14
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Percentage of participants
        number (confidence interval 95%)
    2.8 (0.77 to 9.57)
    12.7 (8.17 to 19.15)
    9.0 (5.35 to 14.83)
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: Remission at Weeks 10 and 14
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    216
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [82]
    P-value
    = 0.09 [83]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    6.2
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -3.33
         upper limit
    12.3
    Notes
    [82] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the placebo arm.
    [83] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: Remission at Weeks 10 and 14
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    286
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [84]
    P-value
    = 0.3217 [85]
    Method
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Parameter type
    Difference in Remission Rates
    Point estimate
    -3.6
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -11.07
         upper limit
    3.78
    Notes
    [84] - Difference and 95% CI adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL) and MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL. Difference in remission rates was calculated as the etrolizumab arm minus the adalimumab arm.
    [85] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life at Week 10, as Assessed by the Total Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Score, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Change From Baseline in Health-Related Quality of Life at Week 10, as Assessed by the Total Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Score, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    The IBDQ is a 32-item questionnaire containing four domains: bowel symptoms (10 items), systemic symptoms (5 items), emotional function (12 items), and social function (5 items). An overall total IBDQ score was computed by summing the individual 32-item scores. The range for the IBDQ total score is 32 to 224, with higher scores denoting better health-related quality of life. The unadjusted mean and standard deviation for each study arm are reported. The change from baseline in the IBDQ score was analyzed using an ANCOVA model taking the stratification factors used at randomization into account (concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at randomization and disease activity measured during screening [MCS ≤9/MCS ≥10]), and the baseline IBDQ score used as a covariate.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Baseline, Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    63 [86]
    127 [87]
    124 [88]
    Units: Score on a scale
        arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
    38.4 ± 35.7
    39.2 ± 32.8
    39.8 ± 35.3
    Notes
    [86] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [87] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    [88] - All subjects in study GA28948 with a baseline result and ≥1 post-baseline result
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Placebo: IBDQ Change at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Placebo v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    187
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [89]
    P-value
    = 0.7919 [90]
    Method
    ANCOVA
    Parameter type
    Difference in Adjusted Means
    Point estimate
    1.3
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -8.3
         upper limit
    10.8
    Notes
    [89] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus placebo arm.
    [90] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.
    Statistical analysis title
    Etro vs. Ada.: IBDQ Change at Week 10
    Statistical analysis description
    Primary and secondary outcome measures were evaluated for statistical significance in a hierarchical manner with a component-wise multistage gatekeeping procedure. Please refer to the statistical analysis plan for details. This comparison was not considered a key secondary outcome measure and was not part of the multiple testing procedure for statistical significance.
    Comparison groups
    Adalimumab v Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects included in analysis
    251
    Analysis specification
    Pre-specified
    Analysis type
    superiority [91]
    P-value
    = 0.8327 [92]
    Method
    ANCOVA
    Parameter type
    Difference in Adjusted Means
    Point estimate
    -0.8
    Confidence interval
         level
    95%
         sides
    2-sided
         lower limit
    -8.7
         upper limit
    7
    Notes
    [91] - Model adjusted for concomitant treatment with corticosteroids or immunosuppressants at baseline (BL), MCS (≤9 or ≥10) at BL, and IBDQ score at BL. Mean difference was calculated as etrolizumab arm minus adalimumab arm.
    [92] - Nominal p-value; it has not been adjusted for multiplicity.

    Secondary: Pharmacokinetics of Etrolizumab: Serum Concentration, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Pharmacokinetics of Etrolizumab: Serum Concentration, GA28948 Population [93]
    End point description
    Serum concentrations of etrolizumab were evaluated at the primary endpoint visit (Week 10) and the secondary endpoint visit (Week 14). Both time points were two weeks after the most recent dose. The GA28948 Pharmacokinetics Evaluable Population includes participants in study GA28948 who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one quantifiable concentration measured post-baseline. Only participants who were treated with etrolizumab were included in this analysis.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Weeks 10 and 14
    Notes
    [93] - The end point is not reporting statistics for all the arms in the baseline period. It is expected all the baseline period arms will be reported on when providing values for an end point on the baseline period.
    Justification: The PK outcome measure of etrolizumab serum concentration was only assessed in participants who had received treatment with etrolizumab.
    End point values
    Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    143
    Units: micrograms per millilitre (μg/mL)
    arithmetic mean (standard deviation)
        Week 10 (n = 142)
    13.0 ± 5.84
        Week 14 (n = 12)
    17.1 ± 8.10
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Number of Participants With at Least One Adverse Event by Severity, According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (NCI CTCAE v4.0), GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Number of Participants With at Least One Adverse Event by Severity, According to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0 (NCI CTCAE v4.0), GA28948 Population
    End point description
    An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical investigation in which a patient is administered a pharmaceutical product, regardless of causal attribution. The investigator independently assessed the severity and seriousness of each recorded AE. The AE severity grading scale for the NCI CTCAE v4.0 was used for assessing severity; any AE not specifically listed was rated according to the following grading scale from 1 to 5: 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe, 4 = life-threatening, 5 = death. AEs of special interest included: elevated AST/ALT in combination with either elevated bilirubin or clinical jaundice; suspected transmission of infectious agent by the study drug; anaphylactic, anaphylactoid and systemic hypersensitivity reactions; and neurological signs, symptoms, and AEs that may suggest possible progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML).
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    From Baseline until the end of study (up to 26 weeks)
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Participants
        Any Adverse Event (AE)
    26
    61
    50
        AE with Fatal Outcome
    0
    0
    1
        Serious AE
    2
    3
    8
        AE Leading to Study Treatment Discontinuation
    0
    2
    2
        AE Leading to Dose Interruption
    0
    1
    3
        Related AE
    4
    14
    10
        AE by Worst Severity, Grade 1
    11
    33
    21
        AE by Worst Severity, Grade 2
    13
    22
    18
        AE by Worst Severity, Grade 3
    2
    6
    9
        AE by Worst Severity, Grade 4
    0
    0
    1
        AE by Worst Severity, Grade 5
    0
    0
    1
        Any AEs of Special Interest
    0
    0
    0
        Confirmed PML
    0
    0
    0
        Infections
    7
    17
    15
        Serious Infections
    2
    0
    2
        Gastrointestinal Infections
    1
    0
    1
        Opportunistic Infections
    0
    0
    0
        Malignancies
    0
    0
    0
        Injection Site Reactions
    0
    4
    1
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Number of Participants by Marked Laboratory Abnormality Status for Hematology Parameters as a Shift Table from Baseline to Week 10, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Number of Participants by Marked Laboratory Abnormality Status for Hematology Parameters as a Shift Table from Baseline to Week 10, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    Laboratory tests for hematology parameters were performed and values were compared with the Roche marked reference range. A marked abnormality was defined as a test result that was outside of the Roche marked reference range (labelled as 'High' or 'Low') and represented a clinically significant change from baseline. Not every laboratory abnormality qualified as an adverse event. A laboratory test result must have been reported as an adverse event if it met any of the following criteria: was accompanied by clinical symptoms; resulted in a change in study treatment or a medical intervention; or was clinically significant in the investigator's judgment. The results are presented as a shift from the baseline status to the Week 10 status. Baseline was defined as the last available assessment prior to first receipt of study drug. The 'missing' status only included participants with missing post-baseline values given they had a result at baseline. Abs = absolute count; Ery. = erythrocyte
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    From Baseline up to Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Participants
        Eosinophils Abs - Normal to Normal
    66
    130
    130
        Eosinophils Abs - Normal to High
    0
    0
    1
        Eosinophils Abs - Normal to Missing
    6
    11
    9
        Eosinophils Abs - High to Normal
    0
    1
    4
        Hematocrit - Low to Low
    0
    0
    2
        Hematocrit - Low to Normal
    0
    5
    3
        Hematocrit - Normal to Low
    3
    1
    2
        Hematocrit - Normal to Normal
    63
    122
    124
        Hematocrit - Normal to High
    0
    1
    0
        Hematocrit - Normal to Missing
    6
    13
    12
        Hematocrit - High to Normal
    0
    0
    1
        Hemoglobin - Low to Low
    4
    15
    11
        Hemoglobin - Low to Normal
    4
    5
    9
        Hemoglobin - Low to Missing
    2
    0
    1
        Hemoglobin - Normal to Low
    6
    2
    5
        Hemoglobin - Normal to Normal
    52
    109
    110
        Hemoglobin - Normal to Missing
    4
    11
    8
        Lymphocytes Abs - Low to Low
    0
    0
    2
        Lymphocytes Abs - Low to Normal
    1
    3
    7
        Lymphocytes Abs - Normal to Low
    1
    2
    1
        Lymphocytes Abs - Normal to Normal
    64
    126
    125
        Lymphocytes Abs - Normal to Missing
    6
    11
    9
        Ery. Mean Corpuscular Volume - Normal to Normal
    66
    129
    132
        Ery. Mean Corpuscular Volume - Normal to Missing
    6
    13
    12
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - Low to Normal
    3
    1
    2
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - Normal to Low
    1
    5
    0
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - Normal to Normal
    58
    115
    118
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - Normal to High
    1
    3
    5
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - Normal to Missing
    6
    11
    8
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - High to Normal
    2
    4
    9
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - High to High
    1
    3
    1
        Neutrophils, Total, Abs - High to Missing
    0
    0
    1
        Platelets - Normal to Normal
    60
    120
    122
        Platelets - Normal to High
    3
    5
    4
        Platelets - Normal to Missing
    8
    13
    12
        Platelets - High to Normal
    1
    0
    4
        Platelets - High to High
    0
    4
    1
        White Blood Cell Count - Low to Normal
    0
    0
    1
        White Blood Cell Count - Normal to Low
    1
    3
    2
        White Blood Cell Count - Normal to Normal
    65
    127
    132
        White Blood Cell Count - Normal to Missing
    6
    11
    9
        White Blood Cell Count - High to Normal
    0
    1
    0
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Number of Participants by Marked Laboratory Abnormality Status for Chemistry Parameters as a Shift Table from Baseline to Week 10, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Number of Participants by Marked Laboratory Abnormality Status for Chemistry Parameters as a Shift Table from Baseline to Week 10, GA28948 Population
    End point description
    Laboratory tests for chemistry parameters were performed and values were compared with the Roche marked reference range. A marked abnormality was defined as a test result that was outside of the Roche marked reference range (labelled as 'High' or 'Low') and represented a clinically significant change from baseline. Not every laboratory abnormality qualified as an adverse event. A laboratory test result must have been reported as an adverse event if it met any of the following criteria: was accompanied by clinical symptoms; resulted in a change in study treatment or a medical intervention; or was clinically significant in the investigator's judgment. The results are presented as a shift from the baseline status to the Week 10 status. Baseline was defined as the last available assessment prior to first receipt of study drug. The 'missing' status only included participants with missing post-baseline values given they had a result at baseline.
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    From Baseline up to Week 10
    End point values
    Placebo Adalimumab Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    72
    142
    144
    Units: Participants
        Albumin - Low to Low
    0
    3
    0
        Albumin - Low to Normal
    0
    2
    1
        Albumin - Normal to Low
    0
    1
    0
        Albumin - Normal to Normal
    69
    132
    137
        Albumin - Normal to Missing
    3
    4
    6
        Alkaline Phosphatase - Normal to Normal
    67
    139
    138
        Alkaline Phosphatase - Normal to High
    1
    0
    0
        Alkaline Phosphatase - Normal to Missing
    3
    3
    6
        Alkaline Phosphatase - High to High
    1
    0
    0
        Alanine Aminotransferase - Normal to Normal
    68
    137
    138
        Alanine Aminotransferase - Normal to High
    1
    0
    0
        Alanine Aminotransferase - Normal to Missing
    3
    4
    6
        Alanine Aminotransferase - High to Normal
    0
    1
    0
        Aspartate Aminotransferase - Normal to Normal
    67
    137
    137
        Aspartate Aminotransferase - Normal to High
    1
    0
    0
        Aspartate Aminotransferase - Normal to Missing
    4
    4
    7
        Aspartate Aminotransferase - High to Normal
    0
    1
    0
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - Low to Low
    0
    0
    1
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - Low to Normal
    1
    3
    1
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - Normal to Low
    8
    9
    6
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - Normal to Normal
    55
    118
    123
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - Normal to High
    0
    0
    1
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - Normal to Missing
    4
    5
    6
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - High to Normal
    4
    5
    6
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - High to High
    0
    1
    0
        Bicarbonate (CO2) - High to Missing
    0
    1
    0
        Blood Urea Nitrogen - Normal to Normal
    69
    138
    138
        Blood Urea Nitrogen - Normal to Missing
    3
    3
    6
        Blood Urea Nitrogen - High to Normal
    0
    1
    0
        Calcium - Low to Normal
    0
    0
    1
        Calcium - Normal to Normal
    69
    139
    137
        Calcium - Normal to Missing
    3
    3
    6
        Chloride - Low to Low
    0
    1
    0
        Chloride - Low to Missing
    1
    0
    0
        Chloride - Normal to Low
    2
    0
    1
        Chloride - Normal to Normal
    67
    137
    137
        Chloride - Normal to Missing
    2
    4
    6
        Creatinine - Normal to Normal
    69
    139
    138
        Creatinine - Normal to Missing
    3
    3
    6
        Direct Bilirubin - Normal to Normal
    68
    134
    134
        Direct Bilirubin - Normal to Missing
    4
    8
    10
        Potassium - Normal to Normal
    69
    139
    137
        Potassium - Normal to Missing
    3
    3
    7
        Sodium - Normal to Normal
    68
    139
    137
        Sodium - Normal to High
    1
    0
    1
        Sodium - Normal to Missing
    2
    3
    6
        Sodium - High to Missing
    1
    0
    0
        Total Bilirubin - Normal to Normal
    68
    136
    137
        Total Bilirubin - Normal to High
    1
    2
    1
        Total Bilirubin - Normal to Missing
    3
    4
    6
        Protein, Total - Low to Normal
    0
    1
    1
        Protein, Total - Normal to Low
    0
    1
    0
        Protein, Total - Normal to Normal
    67
    132
    136
        Protein, Total - Normal to High
    2
    5
    0
        Protein, Total - Normal to Missing
    3
    3
    6
        Protein, Total - High to High
    0
    0
    1
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Secondary: Number of Participants With Anti-Drug Antibodies (ADAs) to Etrolizumab at Baseline and Anytime Post-Baseline, GA28948 Population

    Close Top of page
    End point title
    Number of Participants With Anti-Drug Antibodies (ADAs) to Etrolizumab at Baseline and Anytime Post-Baseline, GA28948 Population [94]
    End point description
    Anti-drug antibody (ADA) serum samples were collected from participants and analyzed using validated assays. Participants were considered to be ADA positive post-baseline if they were ADA negative or had missing data at baseline, but developed an ADA response following etrolizumab drug exposure (treatment-induced ADA response), or if they were ADA positive at baseline and the titer of one or more post-baseline samples was at least 0.60 titer units greater than the titer of the baseline sample (treatment-enhanced ADA response). Participants were considered to be ADA negative if they were ADA negative or had missing data at baseline and all post-baseline samples were negative, or if they were ADA positive at baseline but did not have any post-baseline samples with a titer that was at least 0.60 titer unit greater than the titer of the baseline sample (treatment unaffected).
    End point type
    Secondary
    End point timeframe
    Pre-dose (0 hour) on Day 1 and Week 4, Week 10, Week 14, and early termination/end of safety follow-up (up to 26 weeks)
    Notes
    [94] - The end point is not reporting statistics for all the arms in the baseline period. It is expected all the baseline period arms will be reported on when providing values for an end point on the baseline period.
    Justification: The immunogenicity outcome measure of ADAs to etrolizumab at baseline and postbaseline was only assessed in participants who had received treatment with etrolizumab.
    End point values
    Etrolizumab
    Number of subjects analysed
    144
    Units: Participants
        Positive for ADAs at Baseline (BL)
    6
        Negative for ADAs at BL
    138
        Post-BL: Positive for Treatment Emergent ADAs
    27
        Post-BL ADA Positive: Treatment-Induced ADAs
    27
        Post-BL ADA Positive: Treatment-Enhanced ADAs
    0
        Post-BL: Negative for Treatment Emergent ADAs
    117
        Post-BL ADA Negative: Treatment Unaffected
    6
    No statistical analyses for this end point

    Adverse events

    Close Top of page
    Adverse events information
    Timeframe for reporting adverse events
    From Baseline until the end of study (up to 26 weeks)
    Adverse event reporting additional description
    The adverse events reported here are those that occurred only in participants enrolled in study GA28948 who received at least one dose of study drug. For the adverse events that occurred in participants enrolled in the identically designed study, GA28949, please refer to its study record, 2013-004277-27.
    Assessment type
    Systematic
    Dictionary used for adverse event reporting
    Dictionary name
    MedDRA
    Dictionary version
    23.0
    Reporting groups
    Reporting group title
    Placebo
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive placebo matching to etrolizumab subcutaneously (SC) once every 4 weeks (Q4W) up to Week 12 (Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC once every 2 weeks (Q2W) up to Week 8 (Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Reporting group title
    Etrolizumab
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive etrolizumab 105 mg subcutaneously (SC) Q4W up to Week 12 (Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]) and placebo matching to adalimumab SC Q2W up to Week 8 (Weeks 0 [Day 1], 2, 4, 6, and 8).

    Reporting group title
    Adalimumab
    Reporting group description
    The double-blinded treatment period consisted of a 10-week induction period and an additional 4-week treatment period for participants who met the definition of clinical remission at Week 10. Participants with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis who were naive to TNF inhibitors were randomized to this arm to receive adalimumab subcutaneously (SC) Q2W up to Week 8 (160 mg Week 0 [Day 1], 80 mg SC Week 2, 40 mg SC Weeks 4, 6, and 8) and placebo matching to etrolizumab SC Q4W up to Week 12 (Weeks 0 [Day 1], 4, 8, and 12 [clinical remitters only]).

    Serious adverse events
    Placebo Etrolizumab Adalimumab
    Total subjects affected by serious adverse events
         subjects affected / exposed
    2 / 72 (2.78%)
    8 / 144 (5.56%)
    3 / 142 (2.11%)
         number of deaths (all causes)
    0
    1
    0
         number of deaths resulting from adverse events
    Vascular disorders
    Deep vein thrombosis
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
    Procedural intestinal perforation
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Cardiac disorders
    Cardiac arrest
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
    Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
    Dyspnoea
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Blood and lymphatic system disorders
    Anaemia
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Gastrointestinal disorders
    Colitis ulcerative
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    2 / 144 (1.39%)
    3 / 142 (2.11%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 2
    0 / 3
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Reproductive system and breast disorders
    Prostatitis
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 72 (1.39%)
    0 / 144 (0.00%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Hepatobiliary disorders
    Cholelithiasis
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Metabolism and nutrition disorders
    Hypoalbuminaemia
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Infections and infestations
    Eye infection toxoplasmal
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    1 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Pneumonia
         subjects affected / exposed
    0 / 72 (0.00%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Pneumonia bacterial
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 72 (1.39%)
    0 / 144 (0.00%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    1 / 1
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Pyelonephritis acute
         subjects affected / exposed
    1 / 72 (1.39%)
    0 / 144 (0.00%)
    0 / 142 (0.00%)
         occurrences causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 1
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
         deaths causally related to treatment / all
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    0 / 0
    Frequency threshold for reporting non-serious adverse events: 5%
    Non-serious adverse events
    Placebo Etrolizumab Adalimumab
    Total subjects affected by non serious adverse events
         subjects affected / exposed
    7 / 72 (9.72%)
    6 / 144 (4.17%)
    17 / 142 (11.97%)
    Nervous system disorders
    Headache
         subjects affected / exposed
    3 / 72 (4.17%)
    1 / 144 (0.69%)
    9 / 142 (6.34%)
         occurrences all number
    4
    1
    15
    Gastrointestinal disorders
    Colitis ulcerative
         subjects affected / exposed
    4 / 72 (5.56%)
    5 / 144 (3.47%)
    8 / 142 (5.63%)
         occurrences all number
    4
    5
    9

    More information

    Close Top of page

    Substantial protocol amendments (globally)

    Were there any global substantial amendments to the protocol? Yes
    Date
    Amendment
    08 Apr 2014
    Protocol Version 2: The protocol was amended to reflect program level recommendations from the US FDA as follows: -The definition of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) was updated to include stool frequency subscore of ≥1. -Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Assessments section was modified to include that: 1) given the potential for increased rectal bleeding following endoscopic procedures, rectal bleeding MCS will be derived prior to endoscopy; 2) post-baseline endoscopy should be performed on the same day as the study visit instead of 4 days prior to the visit; 3) each segment, instead of the worst affected segment, of the colon up to the splenic flexure (rectum, sigmoid, and descending colon) will be assigned an endoscopic subscore and the score from the worst affected segment up to the splenic flexure is to be used for the MCS calculation; 4) any discrepancy between the endoscopic subscore obtained by the local versus central readers will require a third adjudication read by a different central reader.
    23 Jul 2014
    Protocol Version 3: The protocol was amended to simplify the study design and to facilitate early access to open-label etrolizumab to eligible patients as follows: -Administration of adalimumab/adalimumab placebo at Weeks 10 and 12 was removed for all arms (for earlier washout) to facilitate earlier entry into the Open-Label Extension (OLE Part 1) of the OLE-SM (Open-Label Extension-Safety Monitoring) study (Study GA28951). Table “Study Drug Administration Schema” was updated accordingly. -Only patients achieving clinical remission at Week 10 will progress to Weeks 12 and 14 of the study to confirm maintenance of induction. Patients not achieving clinical remission at Week 10 should remain in the blinded study until Week 12 (to enable adalimumab washout) at which time they may enroll in the OLE.
    18 Sep 2015
    Protocol Version 4: The protocol was amended following FDA response to a type C request as follows: -Previously, the FDA had mandated a discontinuation of immunosuppressant therapy after Week 10 because of hypothetical risk of PML, resulting in distinct instructions regarding immunosuppressant use in different countries in the protocol. However, the Sponsor recently received agreement from the FDA to amend the global protocol GA28948 to instruct patients to continue their stable, baseline dose of immunosuppressants to the end of study treatment with dose reduction or discontinuation if patient experiences an immunosuppressant-related toxicity. Consequently the protocol was amended to allow patients to continue with immunosuppressant use from baseline to the end of study treatment (with dose reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppressant use permitted in the event of toxicity) in United States. -Following FDA feedback, inclusion criterion for patients at U.S. sites was amended to allow patients who had had an inadequate response to either immunosuppressants and/or corticosteroids to be eligible for the study rather than the previous requirement for failure to immunosuppressants with or without failure to corticosteroids. These two changes aligned United States with the rest of world regarding immunosuppressant use during the study and eligibility requirements for prior immunosuppressant/corticosteroid usage. Contents that indicated the use of immunosuppressants in the United States had to stop at Week 10 was removed.
    18 Dec 2016
    Protocol Version 5: The protocol was amended to update and align the safety section with information regarding potential risks for etrolizumab in the current Etrolizumab Investigator’s Brochure, Version 10, and to account for a change in adalimumab formulation, as follows: -The protocol was amended to include the use of the new formulation of adalimumab as needed, when supplies of the current formulation (40 mg [0.8mL]) could no longer be procured. The new formulation consisted of 40 mg (0.4 mL) of adalimumab provided in a single-use, 1-mL, glass prefilled syringe with a fixed 29-gauge ½-inch needle. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of the new formulation was comparable to that of the formulation currently in use (40 mg [0.8 mL]). -The protocol was updated and added to include potential hepatic effects to be in line with the safety profile of other anti-integrins, including vedolizumab, for which hepatic adverse events were reported. Although no clear hepatic safety signals emerged to date with etrolizumab, this potential risk was considered to be applicable across the anti-integrin class and would be evaluated in all etrolizumab studies.
    30 Aug 2017
    Protocol Version 6: The protocol was amended to enhance recruitment by reducing the complexity of the protocol, particularly at the time of screening and re-screening, as follows: -The requirement for obtaining Medical Monitor approval for extension of the screening period from 28 to 35 days was eliminated to accommodate logistic delays that might arise during the screening period and decrease site burden associated with placing approval requests. The screening window would not be extended beyond 35 days under any circumstances. -The time qualification for derivation of Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) baseline stool frequency and rectal bleeding subscores was redefined to include subscores obtained within 22 days prior to randomization (Day 1). Post-endoscopy subscores might be used, starting 2 days after the screening endoscopy, but only in cases where there were insufficient e-diary data to calculate these subscores prior to the bowel preparation day.
    25 Oct 2018
    Protocol Version 7: The protocol was amended primarily to reflect changes in efficacy endpoints. The changes would not impact study conduct at the site level. These changes are as follows: -To assess the onset of action of etrolizumab, secondary efficacy endpoints of change in Mayo Clinic Score (MCS) rectal bleeding and stool frequency subscores from baseline to Week 6 were added. -The secondary efficacy objective to evaluate colonic mucosal alphaE integrin concentration as a biomarker was expanded and would be evaluated as an exploratory efficacy endpoint to support additional biomarker candidate evaluations in the pivotal placebo-controlled studies within the etrolizumab Phase III Program. -Derivation of the MCS endoscopic subscore at post-baseline timepoints was amended to be consistent with emerging normative standards of endoscopic assessment in clinical trials (Sandborn et al. 2017). The sigmoid colon MCS endoscopic subscore would be used (rather than the score from the worst affected segment, i.e., rectum, sigmoid colon, or descending colon) if the baseline sigmoid colon MCS endoscopic subscore was 2-3. The sigmoid colon MCS endoscopic subscore was considered to be more reliable in assessing earlier treatment response.
    15 Mar 2019
    Protocol Version 8: The protocol was amended to provide further clarification and exploratory efficacy objectives was modified as follows: -Evaluation of response at Week 10, in subgroups by baseline expression levels of colonic tissue and/or peripheral blood biomarkers, was added to predict patient subgroups with a greater likelihood of responding to etrolizumab.

    Interruptions (globally)

    Were there any global interruptions to the trial? No

    Limitations and caveats

    Limitations of the trial such as small numbers of subjects analysed or technical problems leading to unreliable data.
    None reported
    For support, visit the EMA Service Desk , log in using your EMA account and open a ticket specifying "EU CTR" in your request.
    If you do not have an account, please visit the EMA Account management page page click on "Create an EMA account" and follow the instructions.
    The status of studies in GB is no longer updated from 1.1.2021
    For the UK, as from 1.1.2021, EU Law applies only to the territory of Northern Ireland (NI) to the extent foreseen in the Protocol on Ireland/NI
    EU Clinical Trials Register Service Desk: https://servicedesk.ema.europa.eu
    European Medicines Agency © 1995-2022 | Domenico Scarlattilaan 6, 1083 HS Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Legal notice
    EMA HMA