Clinical Trial Results:
A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel-group, Placebo-controlled Study to Investigate the Use of Benralizumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis (MESSINA)
Summary
|
|
EudraCT number |
2019-002871-32 |
Trial protocol |
ES NL PL DE GB FR IT |
Global end of trial date |
06 Feb 2023
|
Results information
|
|
Results version number |
v1(current) |
This version publication date |
20 Jul 2023
|
First version publication date |
20 Jul 2023
|
Other versions |
Trial Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
Subject Disposition
Baseline Characteristics
End Points
Adverse Events
More Information
|
|||
Trial identification
|
|||
Sponsor protocol code |
D3255C00001
|
||
Additional study identifiers
|
|||
ISRCTN number |
- | ||
US NCT number |
NCT04543409 | ||
WHO universal trial number (UTN) |
- | ||
Sponsors
|
|||
Sponsor organisation name |
AstraZeneca
|
||
Sponsor organisation address |
151 85, Södertälje, Sweden,
|
||
Public contact |
Global Clinical Lead, AstraZeneca, +1 8772409479, information.center@astrazeneca.com
|
||
Scientific contact |
Global Clinical Lead, AstraZeneca, +1 8772409479, information.center@astrazeneca.com
|
||
Paediatric regulatory details
|
|||
Is trial part of an agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP) |
Yes
|
||
EMA paediatric investigation plan number(s) |
EMEA-001214-PIP05-19 | ||
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? |
Yes
|
||
Results analysis stage
|
|||
Analysis stage |
Final
|
||
Date of interim/final analysis |
06 Feb 2023
|
||
Is this the analysis of the primary completion data? |
No
|
||
Global end of trial reached? |
Yes
|
||
Global end of trial date |
06 Feb 2023
|
||
Was the trial ended prematurely? |
Yes
|
||
General information about the trial
|
|||
Main objective of the trial |
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of a 30 mg dosing regimen of benralizumab every four weeks on histologic signs and symptoms of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in patients with symptomatic and histologically active Eosinophilic Esophagitis
|
||
Protection of trial subjects |
The independent data monitoring committee (IDMC), consisting of 2 clinicians (including at least 1 EoE expert) and a statistician, was used for this study. They had the responsibility of evaluating cumulative safety and other clinical trial data at regular intervals and made appropriate recommendations based on the available data. The IDMC functioned independently of all other individuals associated with the conduct of the studies, including the study sponsor, AstraZeneca. The committee operated in accordance with a IDMC charter.
|
||
Background therapy |
- | ||
Evidence for comparator |
- | ||
Actual start date of recruitment |
22 Sep 2020
|
||
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 |
United States: 70
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Canada: 20
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
France: 6
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Germany: 10
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Israel: 15
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Italy: 12
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Japan: 6
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Netherlands: 9
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Poland: 12
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Russian Federation: 12
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
Spain: 27
|
||
Country: Number of subjects enrolled |
United Kingdom: 11
|
||
Worldwide total number of subjects |
210
|
||
EEA total number of subjects |
76
|
||
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) |
28
|
||
Adults (18-64 years) |
179
|
||
From 65 to 84 years |
3
|
||
85 years and over |
0
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recruitment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recruitment details |
404 patients were screened from 22SEP2020-22FEB2022. 211 were randomized to the treatment (104) or placebo (107) arms of the double-blind period. 1 patient, who did not meet inclusion/exclusion criteria, was incorrectly randomized but not dosed. Therefore, 103 patients started in the treatment arm and 107 in the placebo arm, for a total of 210. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pre-assignment
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Screening details |
All patients completed a run-in period of 2 to 8 weeks during which inclusion/exclusion criteria was assessed, medical history taken, endoscopy with biopsies performed, and patient reported outcomes (PROs), clinical laboratories, and diet questionnaires were administered. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 1 title |
Double-Blind treatment period
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this the baseline period? |
Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allocation method |
Randomised - controlled
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blinding used |
Double blind | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Roles blinded |
Investigator, Monitor, Carer, Data analyst, Subject, Assessor | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arms
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are arms mutually exclusive |
Yes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Benralizumab | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Experimental | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Benralizumab
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Subcutaneous use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
30 mg/mL solution for injection in accessorized prefilled syringe, 1 mL fill volume
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Placebo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Placebo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
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 |
Matching placebo solution for injection in accessorized prefilled syringe, 1 mL fill volume
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 2
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 2 title |
Open-Label Treatment Period
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this the baseline period? |
No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allocation method |
Not applicable
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blinding used |
Not blinded | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arms
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are arms mutually exclusive |
Yes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Benralizumab | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Experimental | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Benralizumab
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Subcutaneous use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
30 mg/mL solution for injection in accessorized prefilled syringe, 1 mL fill volume
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Placebo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24, then 30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks after week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Placebo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Benralizumab
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Suspension for injection in pre-filled syringe, Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Subcutaneous use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
30 mg/mL solution for injection in accessorized prefilled syringe, 1 mL fill volume
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [1] - The number of subjects starting the period is not consistent with the number completing the preceding period. It is expected the number of subjects starting the subsequent period will be the same as the number completing the preceding period. Justification: One participant enrolled in OL treatment period off study drug (not included in this count) for the treatment group. One participant chose not to enroll in the OL treatment period for the placebo group. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period 3 title |
Open-Label Extension Treatment Period
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this the baseline period? |
No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Allocation method |
Not applicable
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blinding used |
Not blinded | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arms
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Are arms mutually exclusive |
Yes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Benralizumab | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Experimental | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Benralizumab
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Subcutaneous use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
30 mg/mL solution for injection in accessorized prefilled syringe, 1 mL fill volume
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm title
|
Placebo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24, then 30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks after week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arm type |
Placebo | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product name |
Benralizumab
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Investigational medicinal product code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other name |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pharmaceutical forms |
Solution for injection in pre-filled syringe
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Routes of administration |
Subcutaneous use
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dosage and administration details |
30 mg/mL solution for injection in accessorized prefilled syringe, 1 mL fill volume
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [2] - The number of subjects starting the period is not consistent with the number completing the preceding period. It is expected the number of subjects starting the subsequent period will be the same as the number completing the preceding period. Justification: 34 participants in each treatment arm from previous period chose not to enroll in optional OLE period. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Baseline characteristics reporting groups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Benralizumab
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
End points reporting groups
|
|||
Reporting group title |
Benralizumab
|
||
Reporting group description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24 | ||
Reporting group title |
Placebo
|
||
Reporting group description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24 | ||
Reporting group title |
Benralizumab
|
||
Reporting group description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks | ||
Reporting group title |
Placebo
|
||
Reporting group description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24, then 30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks after week 24 | ||
Reporting group title |
Benralizumab
|
||
Reporting group description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks | ||
Reporting group title |
Placebo
|
||
Reporting group description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24, then 30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks after week 24 |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Proportion of patients with a histologic response, defined as a peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≤ 6 eos/hpf at Week 24. | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
Proportion of patients with a histologic response at Week 24. A histologic response is defined as a peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count <= 6 eos/hpf across all available esophageal levels.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants in the treatment group that could have made it to the timepoint by the data cut off.
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) Test | |||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Analysis completed at Week 24.
|
|||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
|||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
210
|
|||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [1] | |||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.0001 [2] | |||||||||||||||
Method |
Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel | |||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Odds ratio (OR) | |||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
117.49
|
|||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||
lower limit |
38.17 | |||||||||||||||
upper limit |
361.64 | |||||||||||||||
Notes [1] - Subjects with no biopsy data at Week 24 or with intercurrent events prior to Week 24 such as changes to background medications or additional new therapies for EoE are considered non-responders. [2] - P value was <0.0001 |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) at Week 24 | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
The Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) captures the presence and severity of dysphagia symptoms in the past day in a 4-item questionnaire. The DSQ score is calculated over 14-day periods and ranges from 0 to 84, with a lower score indicating less severe dysphagia. At least 8 days with evaluable daily score in 14-day period are required; otherwise the DSQ score for the period is set to missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including patients with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Primary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis | |||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline in DSQ = Treatment + baseline DSQ + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
|||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
|||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
195
|
|||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [3] | |||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.177 | |||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | |||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | |||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
2.999
|
|||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-1.36 | |||||||||||||||
upper limit |
7.35 | |||||||||||||||
Notes [3] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the DSQ scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). Analysis was repeated on 100 imputed datasets, and results were combined using Rubin's formula. |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Percent change from baseline in tissue eosinophils at Week 24 | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
Percent change from baseline in tissue eosinophils (eos) at Week 24.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including imputed values).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis | |||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Percent change from baseline in Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts = Treatment + baseline Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil counts.
|
|||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
|||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
197
|
|||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [4] | |||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.0001 [5] | |||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | |||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | |||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-96.2
|
|||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-114.53 | |||||||||||||||
upper limit |
-77.85 | |||||||||||||||
Notes [4] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the Peak Esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil (eos) counts after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). [5] - P-value was <0.0001 |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change from baseline in Eosinophilic Esophagitis-Histology Scoring System (EoE-HSS) total grade score at Week 24 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
EoE-HSS Grade and Stage Scores evaluate eight features: eosinophil density, basal zone hyperplasia, eosinophil abscesses, eosinophil surface layering, dilated intercellular spaces, surface epithelial alteration, dyskeratotic epithelial cells, and lamina propria fibrosis. Severity (grade) and extent (stage) of abnormalities will be scored using a 4-point scale (0 normal; 3 maximum change). Total grade score (TGS): mean of the grade score ratios per region. Grade score ratio per region is the sum of all available feature grade scores divided by the maximum possible score. The maximum possible total grade score is 1.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including imputed values).
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline in EoE-HSS total grade score = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS grade score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
197
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [6] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.0001 [7] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.175
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.21 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
-0.14 | ||||||||||||
Notes [6] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total grade score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). [7] - P-value was <0.0001 |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change from baseline in Eosinophilic Esophagitis-Histology Scoring System (EoE-HSS) total stage score at Week 24 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
EoE-HSS Grade and Stage Scores evaluate eight features: eosinophil density, basal zone hyperplasia, eosinophil abscesses, eosinophil surface layering, dilated intercellular spaces, surface epithelial alteration, dyskeratotic epithelial cells, and lamina propria fibrosis. Severity (grade) and extent (stage) of abnormalities will be scored using a 4-point scale (0 normal; 3 maximum change). Total stage score (TSS): mean of the stage score ratios per region. Stage score ratio per region is the sum of all available feature stage scores divided by the maximum possible score. The maximum possible total stage score is 1.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including imputed values).
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline in EoE-HSS total stage score = Treatment + baseline EoE-HSS stage score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
197
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [8] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.0001 [9] | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.122
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.16 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
-0.09 | ||||||||||||
Notes [8] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-HSS total stage score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). [9] - P-value was <0.0001 |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in centrally-read Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) at Week 24 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
EREFS is a scoring system for assessing the presence and severity of the major endoscopic signs of EoE. The score ranges from 0 (normal) to 9 (severe disease). EREFS total score (TS): The worst score for each individual component from the proximal and distal scores were summed to form the EREFS total score (TS).
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including patients with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline in EREFS total score = Treatment + baseline EREFS total score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
169
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [10] | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.7322 | ||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.1
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.52 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.32 | ||||||||||||
Notes [10] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the centrally-read EREFS total score after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Treatment responder rate, defined as a composite of histological response (≤6eos/hpf) and clinically meaningful improvement from baseline in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) (30% improvement) at Week 24 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
Percentage of participants with a treatment response at Week 24. A treatment response is defined as composite of histologic response and clinically meaningful improvement (30% reduction)
from baseline in DSQ score. Participants with missing data at Week 24 or with intercurrent events prior to Week 24 are considered non-responders.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Cochran-Mantel Haenszel (CMH) test | ||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Controlling for region (North America and Rest of the world), baseline steroid use, and presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
210
|
||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority | ||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.0001 [11] | ||||||||||||
Method |
Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel | ||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Odds ratio (OR) | ||||||||||||
Point estimate |
15.86
|
||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||
lower limit |
5.79 | ||||||||||||
upper limit |
43.47 | ||||||||||||
Notes [11] - P-value was <0.0001 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Centrally-read biopsies for additional histopathology including tissue eosinophil counts at Week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Centrally-read biopsies for additional histopathology including tissue eosinophil counts at Week 24
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Dysphagia-free days as captured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) at Week 24 | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
Dysphagia free days is a count ranging from 0-28. Higher counts indicate better outcomes.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit.
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Frequency of dysphagia episodes as captured by the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Daily Dysphagia Diary (EoE-3D) at Week 24 | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
EoE-3D is a daily diary focused on the patient experience of EoE. Dysphagia episode frequency is summarized as the total number of dysphagia episodes occurring over each 28-day period following randomization, scaled up to 28 days based on missing days. Requires at least 8 days of evaluable data in each 14-day period within each 28-day period; otherwise the period is set to missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit.
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in dysphagia associated pain, discomfort, and overall severity as captured by the EoE-3D at Week 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
EoE-3D is a daily diary focused on the patient experience of EoE. The dysphagia-related pain, discomfort and overall episode severity are calculated as the sum of daily average values in the 14-day period divided by the number of days with available episodes of difficulty swallowing episodes during the same 14-day period. Requires at least 8 days of evaluable data during the period; otherwise the mean scores are set to missing.
Days with 0 episode of difficulty swallowing count as evaluable even there is no severity collected. In case all 14 days with 0 episode of difficulty swallowing, the score would be set as missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis for dysphagia-related pain | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
157
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [12] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.8656 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.04
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.5 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.42 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [12] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis for overall episode severity | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
157
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [13] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.0867 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.344
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.74 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.05 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [13] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA analysis for dysphagia-related discomfort | |||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
157
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [14] | |||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.3926 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | |||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | |||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.181
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | |||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.6 | |||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.23 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [14] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in abdominal pain and nausea as captured by the daily diary at Week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Abdominal pain severity and nausea severity were summarized individually as 14-day means scores. Requires at least 8 days of evaluable data. Otherwise the mean score is set to missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis for nausea severity | ||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
196
|
||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [15] | ||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.1575 | ||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.296
|
||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.11 | ||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.71 | ||||||||||||||||||
Notes [15] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA analysis for abdominal pain severity | ||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
196
|
||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [16] | ||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.2248 | ||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.267
|
||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.16 | ||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
Notes [16] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-3D scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in PEESS at Week 24 | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
The Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Severity Module, Version 2, Children and Teens Report (PEESS) is a questionnaire of EoE symptom severity and frequency in patients age 8 to 18 years.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit.
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (EOE-QoL-A) at Week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
The Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (EoE-QoL-A) is a 30-item assessment developed specifically to measure health-related quality of life in patients with EoE. The overall score ranges from 0 to 96, with higher scores meaning better quality of life. Total Score: sum of Eating/Diet, Social Impact, Emotional Impact, Disease Anxiety and Swallow Anxiety domain scores.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis on Eating/Diet Impact | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
192
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [17] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.8239 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.202
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-1.57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [17] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis on Social Impact | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
192
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [18] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.7623 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.147
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.8 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [18] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis on Emotional Impact | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
192
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [19] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.9898 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference of Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.01
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-1.47 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [19] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis on Disease Anxiety | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
192
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [20] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.4603 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0.386
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.64 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.41 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [20] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis on Swallowing Anxiety | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
192
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [21] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.6613 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.162
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-0.89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.56 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [21] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
ANCOVA model analysis on Total Score | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
192
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [22] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.6965 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
1.017
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-4.09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
6.13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [22] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the EoE-QoL-A scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change from baseline in Short Form 36-item health survey (version 2, acute recall) (SF-36v2) at Week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
The Short Form 36-item Health Survey, version 2, acute recall (SF-36v2) is a 36-item, self-report survey of functional health and well-being, with a 1-week recall period. There are 8 domain scores: Physical Functioning (PF), Role Limitations due to Physical Health (RP), Bodily Pain (BP), General Health Perceptions (GH), Vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF), Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems (RE), and Mental Health (MH). Psychometrically-based physical and mental health component summary scores (PCS and MCS, respectively) were computed from subscale scores to give a broader metric of physical and mental health-related quality of life. All scores range from 0-100, with higher scores meaning better outcomes.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Physical functioning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [23] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.6852 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.3
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-1.93 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [23] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Role limitations due to physical health | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [24] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.2685 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.9
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-2.57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.72 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [24] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Bodily pain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [25] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.538 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.8
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-3.27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.71 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [25] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
General health perceptions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [26] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.9734 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-1.81 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [26] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Vitality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [27] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.9653 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-2.09 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
2.19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [27] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Role limitations due to emotional problems | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [28] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.6274 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.7
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-3.44 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
2.08 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [28] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Social functioning | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [29] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.2326 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-1.5
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-4.04 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
0.98 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [29] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Psychometrically-based physical summary score | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [30] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.6456 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.4
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-2.07 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.28 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [30] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Mental health | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [31] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.4599 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.9
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-3.14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.42 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [31] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis title |
Mental health component summary scores | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Statistical analysis description |
Model: Change from baseline item score = Treatment + baseline item score + Region + Baseline steroid use + Presence of strictures at baseline.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comparison groups |
Benralizumab v Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Number of subjects included in analysis |
164
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis specification |
Pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analysis type |
superiority [32] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
P-value |
= 0.6206 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Method |
ANCOVA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter type |
Difference in Least Squares Means | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Point estimate |
-0.6
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence interval |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
level |
95% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sides |
2-sided
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lower limit |
-3.08 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
upper limit |
1.84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [32] - For any patients with intercurrent events, the SF-36 domain scores after the occurrence of those events were imputed using return-to-baseline MI. Missing data not due to intercurrent events were imputed using MI (MAR). |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Percent of patients with relevant concomitant procedures and healthcare resource utilization at Week 24 and Week 52. | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
Percent of patients with any relevant concomitant procedures and healthcare resource utilization at Week 24 and Week 52.
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24, Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Patient reported overall severity of disease as measured by Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) at Week 24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) is an assessment of the patient’s perceived disease severity. The answer options are “no symptoms,” “very mild,” “mild,” “moderate,” “severe,” and “very severe.”
The number analyzed represents the participants with evaluable PGI-S results at that timepoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Patient reported change in health status since baseline as measured by Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) at Week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) measures the patient’s overall impression of response to treatment since the initial dose. The answer options are “much better,” “moderately better,” “a little better,” “about the same/no change,” “a little worse,” “moderately worse,” and “much worse.”
The number analyzed represents the participants with evaluable PGI-C results at that timepoint.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 24
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Benralizumab Pharmacokinetics for Double Blind Period | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Serum concentrations of benralizumab through Week 24. Geometric mean calculated using log transformed data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Up to week 24
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes [33] - Placebo treatment, so no PK data till after week 24 (where values were mean = BLQ, CI = NA to NA) |
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Benralizumab Pharmacokinetics for Open Label Period | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Serum concentrations of benralizumab in Weeks 36 and 52. Geometric mean calculated using log transformed data.
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 36, Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Immunogenicity of benralizumab in Double Blind period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Immunogenicity of benralizumab assessed by ADA and nAb in the Double Blind period.
Note: TE = Treatment Emergent. *Condition = maximum titre >median of maximum titres. Last two categories for placebo group recorded as 0, but no data calculated (due to placebo treatment).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Up to Week 24
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Immunogenicity of benralizumab in Double Blind + Open Label periods | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Immunogenicity of benralizumab assessed by ADA and nAb in the Double Blind and Open Label periods.
Note: TE = Treatment Emergent. *Condition = maximum titre >median of maximum titres. Pos = positive.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Secondary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Up to Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Proportion of patients with a histologic response, defined as a peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count ≤ 6 eos/hpf at Week 52 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
Proportion of patients with a histologic response at Week 52. A histologic response is defined as a peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count <= 6 eos/hpf across all available esophageal levels.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants in the treatment group that could have made it to the timepoint by the data cut off.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) at Week 52 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) captures the presence and severity of dysphagia symptoms in the past day in a 4-item questionnaire. The DSQ score is calculated over 14-day periods and ranges from 0 to 84, with a lower score indicating less severe dysphagia. At least 8 days with evaluable daily score in 14-day period are required; otherwise the DSQ score for the period is set to missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including patients with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change from baseline in centrally-read Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) at Week 52 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
EREFS is a scoring system for assessing the presence and severity of the major endoscopic signs of EoE. The score ranges from 0 (normal) to 9 (severe disease). EREFS total score (TS): The worst score for each individual component from the proximal and distal scores were summed to form the EREFS total score (TS).
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including patients with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Dysphagia-free days as captured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) at Week 52 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
Dysphagia free days is a count ranging from 0-28. Higher counts indicate better outcomes.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Frequency of dysphagia episodes as captured by the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Daily Dysphagia Diary (EoE-3D) at Week 52 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
EoE-3D is a daily diary focused on the patient experience of EoE. Dysphagia episode frequency is summarized as the total number of dysphagia episodes occurring over each 28-day period following randomization, scaled up to 28 days based on missing days. Requires at least 8 days of evaluable data in each 14-day period within each 28-day period; otherwise the period is set to missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in dysphagia associated pain, discomfort, and overall severity as captured by the EoE-3D at Week 52 | |||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
EoE-3D is a daily diary focused on the patient experience of EoE. The dysphagia-related pain, discomfort and overall episode severity are calculated as the sum of daily average values in the 14-day period divided by the number of days with available episodes of difficulty swallowing episodes during the same 14-day period. Requires at least 8 days of evaluable data during the period; otherwise the mean scores are set to missing.
Days with 0 episode of difficulty swallowing count as evaluable even there is no severity collected. In case all 14 days with 0 episode of difficulty swallowing, the score would be set as missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in abdominal pain and nausea as captured by the daily diary at Week 52 | ||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Abdominal pain severity and nausea severity were summarized individually as 14-day means scores. Requires at least 8 days of evaluable data. Otherwise the mean score is set to missing.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||
End point title |
Change from baseline in PEES at Week 52 | ||||||||||||
End point description |
The Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Symptom Severity Module, Version 2, Children and Teens Report (PEESS) is a questionnaire of EoE symptom severity and frequency in patients age 8 to 18 years.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit.
|
||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Changes from baseline in Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (EOE-QoL-A) at Week 52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
The Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (EoE-QoL-A) is a 30-item assessment developed specifically to measure health-related quality of life in patients with EoE. The overall score ranges from 0 to 96, with higher scores meaning better quality of life. Total Score: sum of Eating/Diet, Social Impact, Emotional Impact, Disease Anxiety and Swallow Anxiety domain scores.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Change from baseline in Short Form 36-item health survey (version 2, acute recall) (SF-36v2) at Week 52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
The Short Form 36-item Health Survey, version 2, acute recall (SF-36v2) is a 36-item, self-report survey of functional health and well-being, with a 1-week recall period. There are 8 domain scores: Physical Functioning (PF), Role Limitations due to Physical Health (RP), Bodily Pain (BP), General Health Perceptions (GH), Vitality (VT), Social Functioning (SF), Role Limitations due to Emotional Problems (RE), and Mental Health (MH). Psychometrically-based physical and mental health component summary scores (PCS and MCS, respectively) were computed from subscale scores to give a broader metric of physical and mental health-related quality of life. All scores range from 0-100, with higher scores meaning better outcomes.
The number analyzed represents the number of participants with data at that visit (including participants with imputed values post intercurrent events).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Patient reported overall severity of disease as measured by Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) at Week 52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) is an assessment of the patient’s perceived disease severity. The answer options are “no symptoms,” “very mild,” “mild,” “moderate,” “severe,” and “very severe.”
The number analyzed represents the participants with evaluable PGI-S results at that timepoint.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Patient reported change in health status since baseline as measured by Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) at Week 52 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point description |
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) measures the patient’s overall impression of response to treatment since the initial dose. The answer options are “much better,” “moderately better,” “a little better,” “about the same/no change,” “a little worse,” “moderately worse,” and “much worse.”
The number analyzed represents the participants with evaluable PGI-C results at that timepoint.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Week 52
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Safety and tolerability in Double Blind Period | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
Percentage of participants with Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) in the Double Blind treatment period (up to Week 24).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
Up to Week 24
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
||||||||||||||||
End point title |
Safety and tolerability in the Open Label period | |||||||||||||||
End point description |
Percentage of participants with Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) in the Open Label treatment period (past week 24).
|
|||||||||||||||
End point type |
Other pre-specified
|
|||||||||||||||
End point timeframe |
From Week 24 up to Week 52
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
No statistical analyses for this end point |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adverse events information
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Timeframe for reporting adverse events |
On study AEs were collected from the first dose to the last date in study.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assessment type |
Systematic | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary used for adverse event reporting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary name |
MedDRA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dictionary version |
25.0
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting groups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Placebo
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
Matching Placebo injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks through week 24, then 30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks after week 24 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group title |
Benra 30 mg
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reporting group description |
30mg Benralizumab injection delivered subcutaneously every 4 weeks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequency threshold for reporting non-serious adverse events: 3% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
Substantial protocol amendments (globally) |
|||
Were there any global substantial amendments to the protocol? Yes | |||
Date |
Amendment |
||
31 Jul 2020 |
The primary rationale for this amendment is to add study mitigation language which will provide sites with measures that may be implemented if a patient is not able to visit a study site to ensure that the clinical trial can continue whilst minimizing risk to the patient, maintaining compliance with GCP, and minimizing risks to the study integrity. The Qualitative Patient Interview Sub-study (Section 8.11.1) was also added. In addition, inclusion/exclusion criteria were clarified, and Table 9 of Restrictions (Section 6.5.4) was updated with clarifications regarding medications allowed, restricted and prohibited prior to screening. Finally, some minor clarifications were made to ensure correct interpretation of the protocol. |
||
26 Aug 2020 |
The primary rationale for this amendment is to add study mitigation language which will provide sites with measures that may be implemented if a patient is not able to visit a study site to ensure that the clinical trial can continue whilst minimizing risk to the patient, maintaining compliance with GCP, and minimizing risks to the study integrity. The Qualitative Patient Interview Sub-study (Section 8.11.1) was also added. In addition, inclusion/exclusion criteria were clarified, and Table 9 of Restrictions (Section 6.5.4) was updated with clarifications regarding medications allowed, restricted and prohibited prior to screening. Finally, some minor clarifications were made to ensure correct interpretation of the protocol. |
||
11 Feb 2021 |
The primary rationale for this amendment is to update the duration of the OLE-period to at least 1 year (variable duration) and to include the option of at-home or remote location self-IP administration after week 52. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were clarified, the primary estimand approach for the analyses of study data was updated to a composite strategy to more accurately account for the occurrence of the described intercurrent events which are considered to reflect a treatment failure outcome. In addition, some minor clarifications were
made to ensure correct interpretation of the protocol. |
||
30 Apr 2021 |
The primary rationale for this amendment is to add the early time point sub-study. The substudy aims to generate early time point evidence of eosinophil depletion in tissue and to understand its relationship with endoscopic findings and symptom response. In addition, some minor clarifications were made to ensure correct interpretation of the protocol. |
||
01 Apr 2022 |
The rationale for this amendment is to adjust the ordering of endpoints within the multiple testing procedure and update the analysis method for treatment failure intercurrent events for continuous endpoints. In addition, some minor clarifications were made to ensure correct interpretation of the protocol. |
||
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 |