Trial Outcomes & Findings for Study Comparing Etanercept (ETN) Against a Placebo for Etanercept on a Background Nonsteroidal Anti Inflammatory Drug (NSAIDs) in the Treatment of Early Spondyloarthritis (SpA) Patients Who do Not Have X-ray Structural Changes (NCT NCT01258738)
NCT ID: NCT01258738
Last Updated: 2015-10-19
Results Overview
ASAS measures symptomatic improvement in Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) in 4 domains: participant global assessment of disease activity, pain, function, inflammation. ASAS 40 = 40% improvement from baseline and an absolute change ≥ 20 units on a 0-100 scale (0 = no disease activity, 100 = high disease activity) for ≥ 3 domains, and no worsening in remaining domain.
Recruitment status
COMPLETED
Study phase
PHASE3
Target enrollment
225 participants
Primary outcome timeframe
Week 12
Results posted on
2015-10-19
Participant Flow
This was a multicenter study conducted at 48 centers in 14 countries.
Eligible participants were randomized to receive etanercept or placebo for 12 week controlled (double-blind) period. Participants completing 12 week period entered a 92 week open-label period.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Etanercept
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Double-blind Period
STARTED
|
111
|
114
|
|
Double-blind Period
Treated
|
111
|
113
|
|
Double-blind Period
COMPLETED
|
102
|
107
|
|
Double-blind Period
NOT COMPLETED
|
9
|
7
|
|
Open-label Period
STARTED
|
102
|
106
|
|
Open-label Period
COMPLETED
|
85
|
85
|
|
Open-label Period
NOT COMPLETED
|
17
|
21
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
Etanercept
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Double-blind Period
Did not meet inclusion criteria
|
3
|
3
|
|
Double-blind Period
Withdrawal by Subject
|
2
|
2
|
|
Double-blind Period
Protocol Violation
|
1
|
1
|
|
Double-blind Period
Adverse Event
|
3
|
1
|
|
Open-label Period
Did not meet inclusion criteria
|
0
|
1
|
|
Open-label Period
Insufficient clinical response
|
5
|
3
|
|
Open-label Period
Lost to Follow-up
|
0
|
2
|
|
Open-label Period
Withdrawal by Subject
|
5
|
6
|
|
Open-label Period
Protocol Violation
|
2
|
2
|
|
Open-label Period
Adverse Event
|
4
|
5
|
|
Open-label Period
Other Reasons
|
0
|
1
|
|
Open-label Period
Withdrawn due to pregnancy
|
1
|
1
|
Baseline Characteristics
Study Comparing Etanercept (ETN) Against a Placebo for Etanercept on a Background Nonsteroidal Anti Inflammatory Drug (NSAIDs) in the Treatment of Early Spondyloarthritis (SpA) Patients Who do Not Have X-ray Structural Changes
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=111 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=113 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Total
n=224 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
31.7 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8 • n=5 Participants
|
32.0 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8 • n=7 Participants
|
31.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8 • n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
41 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
50 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
91 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
70 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
63 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
133 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12Population: Modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA). Missing data were imputed through last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach.
ASAS measures symptomatic improvement in Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) in 4 domains: participant global assessment of disease activity, pain, function, inflammation. ASAS 40 = 40% improvement from baseline and an absolute change ≥ 20 units on a 0-100 scale (0 = no disease activity, 100 = high disease activity) for ≥ 3 domains, and no worsening in remaining domain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) 40 Response at Week 12
|
32.38 Percentage of participants
|
15.74 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
ASAS measures symptomatic improvement in AS in 4 domains: participant global assessment of disease activity, pain, function, inflammation. ASAS 40 = 40% improvement from baseline and an absolute change ≥ 20 units on a 0-100 scale (0 = no disease activity, 100 = high disease activity) for ≥ 3 domains, and no worsening in remaining domain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 2 (N=105, 106)
|
15.24 Percentage of participants
|
3.77 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 4 (N=105, 108)
|
20.00 Percentage of participants
|
14.81 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 8 (N=105, 108)
|
28.57 Percentage of participants
|
15.74 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 12 (N= 105, 108)
|
33.33 Percentage of participants
|
14.81 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 16 (N= 100, 105)
|
42.00 Percentage of participants
|
38.10 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 24 (N= 100, 105)
|
44.00 Percentage of participants
|
51.43 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 32 (N= 100, 105)
|
47.00 Percentage of participants
|
52.38 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 40 (N= 100, 105)
|
55.00 Percentage of participants
|
53.33 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 48 (N= 100, 105)
|
52.00 Percentage of participants
|
53.33 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 56 (N= 100, 105)
|
52.00 Percentage of participants
|
59.05 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 68 (N= 100, 105)
|
54.00 Percentage of participants
|
58.10 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 80 (N= 100, 105)
|
49.00 Percentage of participants
|
58.10 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 92 (N= 100, 105)
|
57.00 Percentage of participants
|
61.90 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points
Week 104 (N= 100, 105)
|
56.00 Percentage of participants
|
61.90 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
ASAS measures symptomatic improvement in AS in 4 domains: participant global assessment of disease activity, pain, function, inflammation. ASAS 20 = 20% improvement from baseline and an absolute change ≥ 10 units on a 0-100 scale (0=no disease activity; 100 = high disease activity) for ≥ 3 domains, and no worsening in remaining domain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 106)
|
30.48 Percentage of participants
|
16.04 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 108)
|
37.14 Percentage of participants
|
26.85 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 108)
|
48.57 Percentage of participants
|
37.96 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
52.38 Percentage of participants
|
36.70 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 16 (N= 100, 105)
|
64.00 Percentage of participants
|
65.71 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
65.00 Percentage of participants
|
71.43 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
64.00 Percentage of participants
|
71.43 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
73.00 Percentage of participants
|
73.33 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
71.00 Percentage of participants
|
72.38 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
70.00 Percentage of participants
|
76.19 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
69.00 Percentage of participants
|
76.19 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
65.00 Percentage of participants
|
70.48 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
71.00 Percentage of participants
|
74.29 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
70.00 Percentage of participants
|
79.05 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
ASAS 5/6 consists of 6 domains: the 4 used in ASAS 20 (participant global assessment of disease activity, pain, function, inflammation measured on a 0-100 scale, where 0 = no disease activity and 100 = high disease activity) plus spinal mobility and an acute phase reactant, C Reactive Protein (CRP). Achieving ASAS 5/6 requires a 20% improvement compared to baseline in ≥ 5 domains and no worsening in the remaining domain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 102, 105)
|
15.69 Percentage of participants
|
2.86 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 103, 107)
|
23.30 Percentage of participants
|
8.41 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 103, 107)
|
33.01 Percentage of participants
|
11.21 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
33.01 Percentage of participants
|
10.38 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
37.00 Percentage of participants
|
34.29 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
41.00 Percentage of participants
|
42.86 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
40.00 Percentage of participants
|
40.95 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
45.00 Percentage of participants
|
40.95 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
49.00 Percentage of participants
|
45.71 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
42.00 Percentage of participants
|
45.71 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
42.00 Percentage of participants
|
43.81 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
39.00 Percentage of participants
|
37.14 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
46.00 Percentage of participants
|
47.62 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
43.00 Percentage of participants
|
40.95 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
ASDAS includes CRP (mg/L) or ESR (mm/hr); Apart from the value of CRP or ESR, the four additional self-reported items (rated on 0-10cm VAS or 0-10 numerical rating scale \[NRS\]) included in this index are back pain, duration of morning stiffness, peripheral pain/swelling and patient global assessment of disease activity. The ASDAS scores are then calculated as follows: ASDAS\_CRP = (0.121 x total back pain) + (0.110 x subject global) + (0.073 x peripheral pain/swelling) + (0.058 x duration of morning stiffness) + (0.579 x Ln(CRP+1)). And ASDAS\_ESR: (0.079 x total back pain) + (0.113 x subject global) + (0.086 x peripheral pain/swelling) + (0.069 x duration of morning stiffness) + (0.293 x √ESR). In addition, the proportion of participants who achieve inactive disease based on the ASDAS will be determined for each group. Inactive disease is defined as an ASDAS score \<1.3.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 104, 106)
|
-0.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 104, 108)
|
-0.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-0.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 104, 108)
|
-1.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N= 104, 108)
|
-1.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-0.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.08
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 16 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-1.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-1.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 32 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-1.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 40 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-1.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-1.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 56 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
-1.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-1.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 80 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.53 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
-1.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
-1.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N= 99, 104)
|
-1.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
-1.68 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Partial remission defined as a score of 20 units or less (on a scale of 0-100, where 0 = no disease activity and 100 = high disease activity) in each of the 4 Assessment in ASAS domains: participant global assessment of disease activity, pain, function, and inflammation. For scale, 100 = high disease activity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 108)
|
11.43 Percentage of participants
|
2.78 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
10.48 Percentage of participants
|
3.67 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 109)
|
21.90 Percentage of participants
|
9.17 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
24.76 Percentage of participants
|
11.93 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
29.00 Percentage of participants
|
28.57 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
32.00 Percentage of participants
|
42.86 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
28.00 Percentage of participants
|
41.90 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
40.00 Percentage of participants
|
45.71 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
38.00 Percentage of participants
|
37.14 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
40.00 Percentage of participants
|
43.81 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
37.00 Percentage of participants
|
48.57 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
34.00 Percentage of participants
|
49.52 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
39.00 Percentage of participants
|
49.52 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
40.00 Percentage of participants
|
57.14 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
The median time to partial remission was not reached at Week 12. Hence, we report an estimate of the percentage of participants, estimated using Kaplan-Meier approach.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Time to ASAS Partial Remission
|
43.3 percentage of participants
Interval 30.4 to 59.0
|
22.3 percentage of participants
Interval 12.5 to 38.1
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach. The values were converted to cm for analysis purposes.
The Investigator estimated the participant's overall disease activity over the previous 48 hours (this was independent of the Subject Assessment of Disease Activity) using a scale between 0 mm (none) and 100 mm (severe).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=102 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 101, 104)
|
-1.40 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.80 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 101, 105)
|
-1.91 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
-1.49 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 101, 105)
|
-2.39 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.10 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.74 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.04 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 96, 101)
|
-3.36 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
-2.78 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 96, 101)
|
-3.66 cm
Standard Error 0.20
|
-3.25 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 96, 101)
|
-3.66 cm
Standard Error 0.21
|
-3.38 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 96, 101)
|
-3.83 cm
Standard Error 0.21
|
-3.44 cm
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 96, 101)
|
-3.93 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
-3.53 cm
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 96, 101)
|
-3.98 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
-3.67 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 96, 101)
|
-3.98 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
-3.60 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 96, 101)
|
-4.03 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
-3.54 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 96, 101)
|
-4.00 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
-3.43 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 96, 101)
|
-4.12 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
-3.78 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach. The values were converted to cm for analysis purposes.
Participants to assess their overall disease activity over the last 48 hours using a pain scale between 0 mm (none) and 100 mm (severe), which corresponded to the magnitude of their pain.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 108)
|
-1.00 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.08 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.34 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.55 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.85 cm
Standard Error 0.32
|
-1.02 cm
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-2.06 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-1.26 cm
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.81 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.65 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.92 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.21 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.99 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.23 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.38 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.33 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.24 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.36 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.30 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.45 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.31 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.57 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.10 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.49 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.34 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.65 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.33 cm
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.75 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach. The values were converted to cm for analysis purposes.
The VAS scale was used to assess the level of nocturnal pain during the past 48 hours. For this, participants marked their level of pain on a 100 mm VAS anchored by 0 for "No pain " to 100 mm for "Most Severe Pain."
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 109)
|
-2.31 cm
Standard Error 0.33
|
-1.34 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.96 cm
Standard Error 0.36
|
-1.03 cm
Standard Error 0.34
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.97 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-2.63 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.79 cm
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.25 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.69 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.11 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.34 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.30 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.22 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.21 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.15 cm
Standard Error 0.33
|
-3.40 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.07 cm
Standard Error 0.33
|
-3.27 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.01 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.32 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.26 cm
Standard Error 0.32
|
-3.43 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.28 cm
Standard Error 0.34
|
-3.59 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 107)
|
-1.10 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-0.31 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.54 cm
Standard Error 0.33
|
-0.71 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach. The values were converted to cm for analysis purposes.
The VAS scale was used to assess the level of total back pain during the past 48 hours. For this, participants marked their level of pain on a 100 mm VAS anchored by 0 for "No pain " to 100 mm for "Most Severe Pain."
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 107)
|
-0.95 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.37 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.52 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-0.88 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 109)
|
-2.19 cm
Standard Error 0.33
|
-1.18 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 12 (n = 105, 109)
|
-2.32 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.39 cm
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 16 (n = 100, 105)
|
-2.73 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.64 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 24 (n = 100, 105)
|
-2.76 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.92 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 32 (n = 100, 105)
|
-2.58 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.87 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 40 (n = 100, 105)
|
-3.30 cm
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.20 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 48 (n = 100, 105)
|
-3.09 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-3.14 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 56 (n = 100, 105)
|
-3.10 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-3.17 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 68 (n = 100, 105)
|
-3.02 cm
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.23 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 80 (n = 100, 105)
|
-2.95 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-3.17 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 92 (n = 100, 105)
|
-3.30 cm
Standard Error 0.29
|
-3.33 cm
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points
Week 104 (n = 100, 105)
|
-3.22 cm
Standard Error 0.32
|
-3.47 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 107)
|
-0.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 108)
|
-0.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-0.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 108)
|
-1.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-0.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.78 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-1.75 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-1.85 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-1.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-2.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-2.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-2.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
-2.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
-2.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-2.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-2.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 104, 107)
|
-0.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 104, 108)
|
-1.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 104, 108)
|
-1.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 104, 108)
|
-2.11 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.43 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-2.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.75 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 99, 105)
|
-3.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-1.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.56 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.85 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.76 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.57 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.78 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.69 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.83 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-2.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-2.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.94 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.53 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 108)
|
-1.79 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.90 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-2.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.45 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 104, 107)
|
-0.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 104, 108)
|
-1.06 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 104, 108)
|
-1.51 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 104, 109)
|
-1.69 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.79 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.79 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.67 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 99, 105)
|
-2.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 99, 105)
|
-3.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-0.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-1.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.67 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-1.76 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-1.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-1.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-1.83 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-1.76 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-0.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.57 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.78 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.95 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.53 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-1.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 12 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-1.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.51 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.75 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.90 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-0.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-2.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.56 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.72 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.53 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 108)
|
-1.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.69 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.94 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.14 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.83 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASFI is a validated self assessment tool that determines the degree of functional limitation in AS. Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = easy, 10 = impossible), participants answered 10 questions assessing their ability in completing normal daily activities or physically demanding activities. The BASFI score is a mean score of the 10 questions.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.95 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.94 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 108)
|
-1.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.57 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.95 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.85 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.75 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-1.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-1.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASDAI is a validated self assessment tool used to determine disease activity in participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = none and 10 = very severe) participant's answered 6 questions measuring discomfort, pain and fatigue. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5. The final BASDAI score averages the individual assessments for a final score range of 0-10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 108)
|
-0.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-0.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 109)
|
-2.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
-2.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.86 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-3.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.72 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-3.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-3.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-3.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-3.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-3.69 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-3.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-3.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-3.87 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASDAI is a validated self assessment tool used to determine disease activity in participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = none and 10 = very severe) participant's answered 6 questions measuring discomfort, pain and fatigue. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5. The final BASDAI score averages the individual assessments for a final score range of 0-10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.45 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.83 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-1.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 101, 106)
|
-2.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-1.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 101, 106)
|
-2.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
-1.43 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-3.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-4.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.45 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-4.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-4.06 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-4.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-4.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-4.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-4.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-4.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-4.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASDAI is a validated self assessment tool used to determine disease activity in participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = none and 10 = very severe) participant's answered 6 questions measuring discomfort, pain and fatigue. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5. The final BASDAI score averages the individual assessments for a final score range of 0-10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-1.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
-1.32 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-2.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.95 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-2.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.86 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-3.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-3.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.68 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASDAI is a validated self assessment tool used to determine disease activity in participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = none and 10 = very severe) participant's answered 6 questions measuring discomfort, pain and fatigue. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5. The final BASDAI score averages the individual assessments for a final score range of 0-10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-0.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-0.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 12 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-1.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.68 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
-1.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-2.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-3.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
-3.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
-3.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.87 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-3.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-3.57 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
-3.72 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASDAI is a validated self assessment tool used to determine disease activity in participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = none and 10 = very severe) participant's answered 6 questions measuring discomfort, pain and fatigue. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5. The final BASDAI score averages the individual assessments for a final score range of 0-10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
-0.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-0.68 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-0.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-2.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-3.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-3.06 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.94 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.90 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-3.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
-3.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-3.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.95 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
-3.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASDAI is a validated self assessment tool used to determine disease activity in participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = none and 10 = very severe) participant's answered 6 questions measuring discomfort, pain and fatigue. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5. The final BASDAI score averages the individual assessments for a final score range of 0-10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 107)
|
-0.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
-0.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
-0.68 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.69 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-1.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-0.87 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-2.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-2.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
2.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
-3.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
-3.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.67 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
-3.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-3.51 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASDAI is a validated self assessment tool used to determine disease activity in participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS). Utilizing a VAS of 0-10 (0 = none and 10 = very severe) participant's answered 6 questions measuring discomfort, pain and fatigue. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5. The final BASDAI score averages the individual assessments for a final score range of 0-10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 4 (N= 105, 109)
|
-1.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
-1.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
-2.32 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-1.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-2.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
-1.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-3.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.32 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-3.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-3.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.85 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-4.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-4.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.83 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-4.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-4.11 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-4.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-3.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-4.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Response was defined as a 50% improvement of the Baseline BASDAI to 104 weeks of study treatment, respectively. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
58.00 Percentage of participants
|
61.90 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 108)
|
17.14 Percentage of participants
|
5.56 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
24.76 Percentage of participants
|
11.01 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 109)
|
37.14 Percentage of participants
|
22.02 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
43.81 Percentage of participants
|
23.85 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
45.00 Percentage of participants
|
59.05 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
50.00 Percentage of participants
|
62.86 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
49.00 Percentage of participants
|
59.05 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
60.00 Percentage of participants
|
64.76 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
59.00 Percentage of participants
|
65.71 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
61.00 Percentage of participants
|
66.67 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
56.00 Percentage of participants
|
66.67 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
62.00 Percentage of participants
|
71.43 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
64.00 Percentage of participants
|
70.48 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Response was defined as a 20% improvement of the Baseline BASDAI to 104 weeks of study treatment. The BASDAI score is obtained by computing the mean score for the 2 questions related to morning stiffness (questions 5 and 6) and then adding that value to the sum of the scores for the first 4 questions and then dividing the total by 5. This can be written as BASDAI=(Q1+Q2+Q3+Q4+(Q5+Q6)/2)/5.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 109)
|
66.67 Percentage of participants
|
51.38 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
64.76 Percentage of participants
|
56.88 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
73.00 Percentage of participants
|
82.86 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
77.00 Percentage of participants
|
86.67 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
77.00 Percentage of participants
|
84.76 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
86.00 Percentage of participants
|
87.62 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
81.00 Percentage of participants
|
87.62 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
81.00 Percentage of participants
|
85.71 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
80.00 Percentage of participants
|
90.48 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
81.00 Percentage of participants
|
88.57 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
82.00 Percentage of participants
|
88.57 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
84.00 Percentage of participants
|
90.48 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 108)
|
41.90 Percentage of participants
|
33.33 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
56.19 Percentage of participants
|
42.20 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
The BAS-G was a 2 question assessment evaluating the effect of AS on the participants well-being over the last week and last 6 months. The 2 questions were: How have you been over the last week? and How have you been over the last six months?. Each question is scored by the participant on a 100 mm scale ranging from 0 (Very Good) to 100 (Very Bad). The two values are averaged to obtain the BAS-G score.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.75 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-1.85 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
-2.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-2.87 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 105, 109)
|
-3.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-3.51 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 105, 109)
|
-3.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-3.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 105, 109)
|
-3.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-3.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 105, 109)
|
-3.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-3.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASMI is an objective measure of spinal mobility. The BASMI score is composed of 5 measures: cervical rotation, intermalleolar distance, modified Schober's test, lateral flexion and tragus to wall distance. Each measure was scored 0-2 (0=normal mobility, 2=severe reduction) to give a final score ranging 0 to 10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=104 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 103, 108)
|
-0.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
-0.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 103, 109)
|
-0.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.12
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 103, 109)
|
-0.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 103, 109)
|
-0.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.56 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 98, 105)
|
-0.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASMI is an objective measure of spinal mobility. The BASMI score is composed of 5 measures: cervical rotation, intermalleolar distance, modified Schober's test, lateral flexion and tragus to wall distance. Each measure was scored 0-2 (0=normal mobility, 2=severe reduction) to give a final score ranging 0 to 10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=104 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 2 (N= 100, 105)
|
1.06 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.49
|
0.69 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.46
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 4 (N= 100, 106)
|
1.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.51
|
1.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.48
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 8 (N= 100, 106)
|
1.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.53
|
0.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.50
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 12 (N = 100, 106)
|
1.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.62
|
0.43 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.58
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 16 (N = 98, 105)
|
1.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.55
|
1.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 24 (N = 98, 105)
|
1.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.66
|
1.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 32 (N = 98, 105)
|
2.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.57
|
1.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 40 (N = 98, 105)
|
1.86 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.59
|
1.57 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.38
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 48 (N = 98, 105)
|
2.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.55
|
1.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 56 (N = 98, 105)
|
1.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.54
|
1.43 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.36
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 68 (N = 98, 105)
|
2.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.58
|
1.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.41
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 80 (N = 98, 105)
|
1.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.59
|
1.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.40
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 92 (N = 98, 105)
|
2.14 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.60
|
1.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.38
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point
Week 104 (N = 98, 105)
|
1.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.59
|
1.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.37
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASMI is an objective measure of spinal mobility. The BASMI score is composed of 5 measures: cervical rotation, intermalleolar distance, modified Schober's test, lateral flexion and tragus to wall distance. Each measure was scored 0-2 (0=normal mobility, 2=severe reduction) to give a final score ranging 0 to 10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
1.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.26
|
0.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.19
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 4 (N= 105, 109)
|
3.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.31
|
2.49 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
4.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.42
|
3.86 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.34
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
4.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.52
|
2.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.44
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
5.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.37
|
4.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.09
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
5.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.35
|
5.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.18
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
5.32 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.43
|
6.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
5.56 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.51
|
5.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.19
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
5.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.48
|
6.90 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.19
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
5.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.44
|
6.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
6.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.43
|
8.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
6.14 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.45
|
7.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
6.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.50
|
8.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
5.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.57
|
8.55 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.22
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASMI is an objective measure of spinal mobility. The BASMI score is composed of 5 measures: cervical rotation, intermalleolar distance, modified Schober's test, lateral flexion and tragus to wall distance. Each measure was scored 0-2 (0=normal mobility, 2=severe reduction) to give a final score ranging 0 to 10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=104 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 2 (N= 89, 90)
|
0.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
0.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 4 (N= 89, 90)
|
0.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 8 (N= 89, 90)
|
0.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
0.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 12 (N = 89, 90)
|
0.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
0.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 16 (N = 86, 86)
|
0.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
0.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 24 (N = 86, 86)
|
0.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
0.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 32 (N = 86, 86)
|
0.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
0.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 40 (N = 86, 86)
|
0.68 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
0.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 48 (N = 86, 86)
|
0.75 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
0.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 56 (N = 86, 86)
|
1.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.36
|
0.79 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 68 (N = 86, 86)
|
1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
0.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 80 (N = 86, 86)
|
1.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.38
|
0.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 92 (N = 86, 86)
|
1.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
0.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point
Week 104 (N = 86, 86)
|
0.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.36
|
0.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASMI is an objective measure of spinal mobility. The BASMI score is composed of 5 measures: cervical rotation, intermalleolar distance, modified Schober's test, lateral flexion and tragus to wall distance. Each measure was scored 0-2 (0=normal mobility, 2=severe reduction) to give a final score ranging 0 to 10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=104 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
0.75 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.22
|
-0.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.15
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 4 (N= 105, 109)
|
4.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.50
|
1.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.42
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
4.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.70
|
1.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.61
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
3.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.75
|
1.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.66
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
6.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.44
|
3.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.27
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
7.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.41
|
4.76 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.30
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
8.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.38
|
5.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.35
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
8.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.38
|
5.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.34
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
8.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.50
|
6.32 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.33
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
9.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.48
|
7.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.38
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
9.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.55
|
7.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.37
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
9.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.55
|
8.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.32
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
9.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.55
|
9.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.34
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
8.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.57
|
8.72 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.35
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
BASMI is an objective measure of spinal mobility. The BASMI score is composed of 5 measures: cervical rotation, intermalleolar distance, modified Schober's test, lateral flexion and tragus to wall distance. Each measure was scored 0-2 (0=normal mobility, 2=severe reduction) to give a final score ranging 0 to 10.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=104 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=109 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 2 (N= 105, 108)
|
0.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 4 (N= 105, 109)
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.37 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 8 (N= 105, 109)
|
-0.31 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.20
|
-0.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 12 (N = 105, 109)
|
-0.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-0.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 16 (N = 100, 105)
|
0.14 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
-0.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 24 (N = 100, 105)
|
0.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
0.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.17
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 32 (N = 100, 105)
|
0.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
0.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 40 (N = 100, 105)
|
-0.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-0.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 48 (N = 100, 105)
|
-0.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
0.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 68 (N = 100, 105)
|
-0.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
0.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.18
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 56 (N = 100, 105)
|
0.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.17
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 80 (N = 100, 105)
|
-0.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 92 (N = 100, 105)
|
-0.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.18
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point
Week 104 (N = 100, 105)
|
-0.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-0.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.18
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Chest expansion, measured in cm, is defined as the difference in thoracic circumference during full expiration versus full inspiration, measured at the fourth intercostal space (nipple line). At maximal inspiration, the chest circumference was measured at nipple line or at the 4th intercostal space (in cm to the nearest 0.1 cm).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 104, 105)
|
0.16 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
0.69 cm
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 104, 108)
|
0.31 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
0.44 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 104, 108)
|
0.20 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
0.61 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 104, 108)
|
0.12 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
0.37 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.43 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
0.68 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.38 cm
Standard Error 0.17
|
0.69 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.49 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
0.62 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.55 cm
Standard Error 0.17
|
0.71 cm
Standard Error 0.17
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.63 cm
Standard Error 0.17
|
0.80 cm
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.49 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
0.72 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.61 cm
Standard Error 0.17
|
0.56 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.32 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
0.74 cm
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.52 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
0.56 cm
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 99, 104)
|
0.67 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
0.63 cm
Standard Error 0.20
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Occiput-to-wall distance: distance between the occiput (posterior or back portion of the head) and the wall when the participant stood with heels and shoulder against the wall and the back straight.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 104, 106)
|
-0.21 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
-0.12 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 104, 108)
|
-0.37 cm
Standard Error 0.20
|
-0.36 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 104, 108)
|
-0.09 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.27 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 104, 108)
|
-0.28 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.41 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.24 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
-0.29 cm
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.11 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
-0.38 cm
Standard Error 0.18
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.20 cm
Standard Error 0.25
|
-0.31 cm
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.34 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
-0.24 cm
Standard Error 0.17
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.25 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.42 cm
Standard Error 0.13
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.42 cm
Standard Error 0.22
|
-0.26 cm
Standard Error 0.14
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.42 cm
Standard Error 0.23
|
-0.21 cm
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.34 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.55 cm
Standard Error 0.17
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.29 cm
Standard Error 0.24
|
-0.49 cm
Standard Error 0.15
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 99, 104)
|
-0.73 cm
Standard Error 0.26
|
-0.52 cm
Standard Error 0.19
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 12Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through observed cases.
The change from baseline in the MRI score of spine was assessed using SPARCC method. The scores of the 6 most severely affected spinal levels (discovertebral units/DVUs) was selected. Each DVU was divided into 4 quadrants. Each quadrant was assigned a score of 0 = no lesion or 1 = increased signal. This was repeated for each of 3 consecutive sagittal slices resulting in a score of up to 12 per DVU. On each slice, the presence of a lesion exhibiting an intense signal in any quadrant was assigned an additional score of 1 for that slice. Additionally, on each slice the presence of a lesion exhibiting depth ≥ 1 cm in any quadrant was given an additional score of 1. The maximum score for 6 DVU Spine Total Score is 108.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=95 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at 12 Weeks
|
-2.12 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.72
|
-2.12 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.43
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 12 and 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through observed cases.
The change from baseline in the MRI score of sacroiliac joints was assessed using SPARCC method. Scoring was based on 6 consecutive coronal slices from posterior to anterior. Each joint was divided into 4 quadrants. Each quadrant was assigned a score of 0 = no lesion/1 = increased signal. For each slice, the score is increased by 1 for each joint that exhibits an intense signal in any quadrant. Also, for each slice, an additional score of 1 will be given for each joint that includes a lesion demonstrating continuous increased signal of a depth ≥1 cm from the articular surface. The maximum possible score is 72.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=95 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 74, 79)
|
-6.00 units on a scale
Standard Error 1.15
|
-3.36 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.84
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 97, 105)
|
-3.99 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.72
|
-0.86 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.43
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 12 and 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through observed cases.
The change from baseline in the MRI score of spine was assessed using SPARCC method. The scores of the 6 most severely affected spinal levels (discovertebral units/DVUs) was selected. Each DVU was divided into 4 quadrants. Each quadrant was assigned a score of 0 = no lesion or 1 = increased signal. This was repeated for each of 3 consecutive sagittal slices resulting in a score of up to 12 per DVU. On each slice, the presence of a lesion exhibiting an intense signal in any quadrant was assigned an additional score of 1 for that slice. Additionally, on each slice the presence of a lesion exhibiting depth ≥ 1 cm in any quadrant was given an additional score of 1. The maximum score for 6 DVU Spine Total Score is 108.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=95 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N= 95, 105)
|
-2.12 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.49
|
-1.16 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.47
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N= 74, 80)
|
-2.08 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.91
|
-0.78 units on a scale
Standard Error 0.49
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 12 and 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through observed cases
ASspiMRI-a measures acute lesion scores as determined by short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) and gadolinium-enhanced T1 (Gd-DTPA). All 23 disco-vertebral units (DVU) of the spine (from C2 to S1), defined as the region between 2 virtual lines through the middle of each vertebra, are scored in a single dimension, which is representing the highest level of inflammation in that particular DVU. Enhancement and bone marrow edema are graded (0-3) for each DVU, with 3 more grades (4-6) if, in addition to the signs of acute inflammation defined for grades 1-3, erosions are visualized, leading to a maximum score of 138 for the entire spine. Acute spinal changes were assessed by using STIR sagittal views of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. The total score ranges from 0 (no inflammation) to 138 (high inflammation).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=95 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total Score
Week 12 (N= 95 105)
|
-0.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.17
|
-0.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total Score
Week 104 (N= 73, 80)
|
-0.79 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
-0.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.16
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Forty-four (44) joints were assessed by the Investigator to determine the number of joints that were considered swollen (artificial joints were not assessed). The response to pressure/motion on each joint was assessed using the following scale: Present/Absent/Not Done. The 44 joints to be assessed were:sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular, shoulder, elbow, wrist (includes radiocarpal, carpal and carpometacarpal considered as one unit), metacarpophalangeals (I, II, III, IV, V), thumb interphalangeal (IP), proximal IPs (II, III, IV, V), knee, ankle, metatarsophalangeals (I, II, III, IV, V).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=102 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 100, 102)
|
-0.27 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.17
|
-0.08 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.16
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 100, 105)
|
-0.62 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.45 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.13
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 101, 105)
|
-0.71 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.14
|
-0.52 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.13
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 101, 105)
|
-0.60 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.12
|
-0.29 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.11
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 96, 102)
|
-0.76 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.17
|
-0.59 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.19
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 96, 102)
|
-0.80 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.20
|
-0.68 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 32 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.75 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.23
|
-0.64 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 40 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.80 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.71 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.20
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 48 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.83 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.83 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 56 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.86 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.76 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 68 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.86 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.82 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 80 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.85 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.79 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 92 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.83 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.76 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.23
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points
Week 104 (N= 96, 102)
|
-0.89 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.21
|
-0.84 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.22
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Forty-four (44) joints were assessed by the Investigator to determine the number of joints that were considered tender or painful. The response to pressure/motion on each joint was assessed using the following scale: Present/Absent/Not Done/Not Applicable (to be considered for artificial joints). The 44 joints to be assessed were:sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular, shoulder, elbow, wrist (includes radiocarpal, carpal and carpometacarpal considered as one unit), metacarpophalangeals (I, II, III, IV, V), thumb interphalangeal (IP), proximal IPs (II, III, IV, V), knee, ankle, metatarsophalangeals (I, II, III, IV, V).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=102 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 100, 102)
|
-1.99 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.36
|
-1.38 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.35
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 100, 105)
|
1.52 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.41
|
-1.27 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.39
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 101, 105)
|
-1.93 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.41
|
-2.02 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.39
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 101, 105)
|
-1.55 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.38
|
-1.56 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.36
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 96, 102)
|
-1.93 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.39
|
-2.35 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.49
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.46 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.43
|
-2.83 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.57
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 96, 102)
|
-1.96 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.42
|
-3.09 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.55
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.42 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.42
|
-3.16 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.53
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.65 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.42
|
-2.95 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.55
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.44 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.43
|
-3.25 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.58
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.43 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.40
|
-3.30 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.61
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.60 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.43
|
-3.07 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.60
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.45 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.37
|
-3.29 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.58
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 96, 102)
|
-2.72 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.42
|
-3.48 Number of joints
Standard Error 0.58
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Each of the 10 fingers and 10 toes is evaluated for dactylitis. A score of 0, 1, 2 or 3 (where 0 = none, 1= mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) is assigned to each. A total score which can range from 0 to 60 is obtained by adding the scores for the 20 digits
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 107)
|
-0.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
0.02 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 108)
|
-0.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
-0.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 108)
|
-0.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.02
|
-0.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.02
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 108)
|
-0.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.08
|
-0.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.07
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.09
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.11
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
|
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 104)
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.13
|
-0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.10
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
Assessment of enthesitis was performed in the following 7 domains: 1) 1st costochondral joint left and right, 2) 7th costochondral joint left and right, 3) posterior superior iliac spine left and right, 4) anterior superior iliac spine left and right, 5) iliac crest left and right, 6) 5th lumbar spinous process and 7) proximal insertion of Achilles tendon left and right. Each domain was graded for the presence (1) and absence (0) of tenderness yielding total MASES ranging from 0 (no tenderness) to 13 (worst possible score; severe tenderness).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=105 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 104, 107)
|
-0.94 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.23
|
-0.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.22
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 104, 108)
|
-1.11 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-0.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 104, 108)
|
-1.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 104, 108)
|
-1.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-0.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.24
|
-1.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.78 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.25
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.86 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.62 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.79 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 99, 104)
|
-2.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.27
|
-1.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.72 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 99, 104)
|
-2.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.26
|
-1.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.30
|
|
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 99, 104)
|
-1.87 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.28
|
-1.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.29
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
The test for CRP is a laboratory measurement for evaluation of an acute phase reactant of inflammation through the use of an ultrasensitive assay. A decrease in the level of CRP indicates reduction in inflammation and therefore improvement.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=108 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 24 (N = 100, 104)
|
-4.62 mg/L
Standard Error 1.10
|
-4.56 mg/L
Standard Error 1.04
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 8 (N = 105, 108)
|
-4.07 mg/L
Standard Error 1.33
|
-0.97 mg/L
Standard Error 1.27
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 12 (N = 105, 108)
|
-2.78 mg/L
Standard Error 1.14
|
0.65 mg/L
Standard Error 1.08
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 16 (N = 100, 104)
|
-4.84 mg/L
Standard Error 1.07
|
-3.82 mg/L
Standard Error 1.08
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 2 (N = 105, 107)
|
-4.49 mg/L
Standard Error 0.71
|
-1.46 mg/L
Standard Error 0.67
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 4 (N = 105, 108)
|
-3.61 mg/L
Standard Error 1.16
|
0.25 mg/L
Standard Error 1.10
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 32 (N = 100, 104)
|
-4.97 mg/L
Standard Error 1.01
|
-3.88 mg/L
Standard Error 1.01
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 40 (N = 100, 104)
|
-4.88 mg/L
Standard Error 1.10
|
-4.26 mg/L
Standard Error 1.08
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 48 (N = 100, 104)
|
-4.94 mg/L
Standard Error 1.08
|
-4.64 mg/L
Standard Error 1.06
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 56 (N = 100, 104)
|
-5.20 mg/L
Standard Error 1.04
|
-4.59 mg/L
Standard Error 1.02
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 68 (N = 100, 104)
|
-5.03 mg/L
Standard Error 1.01
|
-3.93 mg/L
Standard Error 1.09
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 80 (N = 100, 104)
|
-4.29 mg/L
Standard Error 1.17
|
-4.12 mg/L
Standard Error 0.99
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 92 (N = 100, 104)
|
-5.10 mg/L
Standard Error 1.06
|
-4.44 mg/L
Standard Error 1.04
|
|
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points
Week 104 (N = 100, 104)
|
-4.28 mg/L
Standard Error 1.16
|
-3.65 mg/L
Standard Error 1.12
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
ESR is a laboratory test that provides a non-specific measure of inflammation. The test assesses the rate at which red blood cells fall in a test tube. Normal range is 0-30 mm/hr. A higher rate is consistent with inflammation.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=101 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=106 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 95, 102)
|
-13.03 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.18
|
-8.91 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.70
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 100, 104)
|
-9.02 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.61
|
-1.30 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.53
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 100, 106)
|
-10.00 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.57
|
-3.98 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.48
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 100, 106)
|
-10.79 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.84
|
-4.81 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.76
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 100, 106)
|
-11.34 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.80
|
-2.68 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.39
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 95, 102)
|
-12.75 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.03
|
-9.77 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.62
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 95, 102)
|
-14.22 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.96
|
-8.82 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.77
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 95, 102)
|
-12.76 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.04
|
-10.13 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.76
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 95, 102)
|
-11.49 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.22
|
-10.48 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.74
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 95, 102)
|
-12.20 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.05
|
-9.91 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.90
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 95, 102)
|
-10.80 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.17
|
-9.48 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.74
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 95, 102)
|
-10.74 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.14
|
-8.15 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.74
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 95, 102)
|
-10.84 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.28
|
-8.79 mm/hr
Standard Error 1.79
|
|
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 95, 102)
|
-10.51 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.15
|
-5.73 mm/hr
Standard Error 2.05
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single index value. The VAS component rates current health state on a scale from 0 mm (worst imaginable health state) to 100 mm (best imaginable health state); higher scores indicate a better health state.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=96 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 4 (N = 86, 93)
|
4.76 mm
Standard Error 2.20
|
4.77 mm
Standard Error 2.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 8 (N = 85, 93)
|
6.66 mm
Standard Error 2.84
|
3.05 mm
Standard Error 2.65
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 12 (N = 84, 92)
|
9.33 mm
Standard Error 2.97
|
3.26 mm
Standard Error 2.77
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 16 (N = 82, 91)
|
12.72 mm
Standard Error 2.16
|
11.56 mm
Standard Error 2.44
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 24 (N = 82, 90)
|
13.21 mm
Standard Error 2.23
|
16.61 mm
Standard Error 2.26
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 40 (N = 79, 86)
|
16.62 mm
Standard Error 2.13
|
14.67 mm
Standard Error 2.64
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 48 (N = 75, 86)
|
16.29 mm
Standard Error 2.37
|
18.72 mm
Standard Error 2.37
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 82)
|
17.26 mm
Standard Error 2.18
|
17.90 mm
Standard Error 2.60
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 77)
|
16.32 mm
Standard Error 2.33
|
21.08 mm
Standard Error 2.73
|
|
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points
Week 104 (N = 64, 75)
|
19.81 mm
Standard Error 2.45
|
23.69 mm
Standard Error 2.71
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single utility score. Health State Profile component assesses level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression; 1 indicates better health state (no problems); 3 indicates worst health state. Scoring formula developed by EuroQol Group assigns a utility value for each domain in the profile. Score is transformed and results in a total score range -0.594 to 1.000; higher score indicates a better health state.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=96 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 89, 96)
|
0.14 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
0.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 86, 94)
|
0.13 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.04
|
0.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 85, 93)
|
0.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.04
|
0.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 83, 90)
|
0.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.04
|
0.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 82, 90)
|
0.21 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
0.20 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 79, 86)
|
0.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.04
|
0.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N= 75, 86)
|
0.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
0.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N= 72, 83)
|
0.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.04
|
0.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N= 69, 78)
|
0.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.04
|
0.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
|
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N= 64, 75)
|
0.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.04
|
0.25 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.03
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100 = highest level of functioning).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=96 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 89, 96)
|
4.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.79
|
2.72 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.74
|
|
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 85, 94)
|
6.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.97
|
3.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.91
|
|
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 83, 91)
|
6.67 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.93
|
7.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.78
|
|
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 77, 86)
|
8.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.96
|
8.51 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.85
|
|
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 83)
|
8.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.98
|
9.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.94
|
|
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 78)
|
8.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.15
|
9.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.93
|
|
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 65, 75)
|
9.98 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.03
|
10.38 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.01
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=96 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 89, 96)
|
2.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.02
|
1.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.94
|
|
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 85, 94)
|
2.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.29
|
1.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.20
|
|
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 83, 91)
|
3.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.30
|
4.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.99
|
|
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 77, 86)
|
3.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.18
|
3.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.07
|
|
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 83)
|
3.65 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.23
|
4.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.05
|
|
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 78)
|
4.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.48
|
4.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.19
|
|
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points
Week 104 (N= 65, 75)
|
4.90 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.34
|
3.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.06
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
This outcome measure is describing the HADS subscale of depression. HADS is a participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms. There is no Total Score for HADS.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=96 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 89, 96)
|
-0.63 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-0.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 85, 94)
|
-0.45 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.46
|
-0.05 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.43
|
|
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 83, 91)
|
-1.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
-1.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.31
|
|
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 77, 85)
|
-1.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.38
|
-1.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.36
|
|
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 82)
|
-1.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
-1.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.36
|
|
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 78)
|
-1.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.39
|
-1.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.38
|
|
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 65, 74)
|
-1.91 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.40
|
-1.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
This outcome measure is describing the HADS subscale of anxiety. HADS is a participant rated questionnaire with 2 subscales. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks); HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). Each subscale comprised of 7 items with range 0 (no presence of anxiety or depression) to 3 (severe feeling of anxiety or depression). Total score 0 to 21 for each subscale; higher score indicates greater severity of anxiety and depression symptoms. There is no Total Score for HADS.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=96 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 89, 96)
|
-0.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
-0.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.32
|
|
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 85, 94)
|
-1.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.45
|
-0.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.43
|
|
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 83, 91)
|
-0.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.40
|
-1.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.33
|
|
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 77, 85)
|
-1.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.38
|
-1.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.34
|
|
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 82)
|
-1.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.39
|
-1.76 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.41
|
|
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 78)
|
-0.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.46
|
-2.24 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.35
|
|
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 65, 74)
|
-1.80 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.40
|
-1.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.39
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
ASQoL is a questionnaire that assesses disease-specific quality of life (QoL). It consists of 18 statements that are relevant to the physical and mental conditions for a participant with Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS): mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each statement is answered by the participant as a 'Yes' (scored as 1) or 'No' (scored as 0). All item scores are summed to give a total score. Total score can range from 0 (good QoL) to 18 (poor QoL).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=96 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 65, 73)
|
-4.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.54
|
-3.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.54
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 88, 94)
|
-1.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.54
|
-1.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.51
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 83, 91)
|
-3.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.47
|
-3.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.41
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 77, 86)
|
-3.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.49
|
-3.67 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.43
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 83)
|
-4.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.48
|
-4.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.46
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 77)
|
-4.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.52
|
-4.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.53
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
The AS-WIS is a 20 item questionnaire to assess work disability and risk of unemployment due to AS. Higher scores indicate greater work impairment and instability that results from a mismatch between an individual's ability levels given their AS and their job. Each question is assigned a score of 1 for a response of "True" and 0 for a response of "Not True". All item scores are summed to give a total score that can range from 0 to 20. If a subject has ≥ 5 missing responses (ie more than 20%), then a total score is not calculated. For subjects with ≥ 1 but ≤ 4 missing responses, the total score is calculated as follows: T=20x/(20-m) where: T is the total score, x is the total score for the items answered and n is the number of non-missing items.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=87 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=91 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 81, 84)
|
-2.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.58
|
-1.58 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.55
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 74, 75)
|
-3.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.58
|
-2.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.60
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 66, 75)
|
-3.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.63
|
-4.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.59
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 60, 66)
|
-4.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.64
|
-5.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.71
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 57, 60)
|
-4.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.76
|
-5.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.71
|
|
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 55, 62)
|
-4.78 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.68
|
-5.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.74
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
The WPAI assesses work productivity and impairment. It is a 6-item questionnaire used to assess the degree to which a specified health problem affected work productivity and regular activities over the past 7 days. The questions are: Q1 = currently employed. Q2 = hours missed due to health problems. Q3 = hours missed other reasons. Q4 = hours actually worked. Q5 = degree health affected productivity while working (0-10 scale). Q6 = degree health affected regular activities (0-10 scale). Subscale scores are calculated: Percent work time missed due to health problem: Q2/(Q2+Q4). The computed percentage range for each sub-scale is 0-100, where higher numbers indicate greater impairment and less productivity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=62 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=62 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 56, 59)
|
2.83 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.64
|
0.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.58
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 57, 59)
|
1.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.35
|
0.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.25
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 53, 53)
|
4.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.13
|
0.67 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.15
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 53, 55)
|
-0.19 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.36
|
-4.93 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.25
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 53, 52)
|
-1.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.34
|
-2.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.92
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 47, 47)
|
-0.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.40
|
-7.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.61
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 48, 46)
|
-4.06 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.02
|
-9.76 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.12
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 40 (N= 50, 50)
|
-2.16 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.15
|
-9.23 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.73
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 48 (N= 48, 47)
|
-5.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.33
|
-6.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.60
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 56 (N= 44, 49)
|
-3.99 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.77
|
-9.11 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.79
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 68 (N= 44, 44)
|
-2.41 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.19
|
-7.51 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.69
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 80 (N= 43, 44)
|
2.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.45
|
-9.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.21
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 92 (N= 45, 44)
|
-1.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.31
|
-8.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.29
|
|
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 104 (N= 42, 43)
|
-6.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.45
|
-10.44 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.74
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
The WPAI assesses work productivity and impairment. It is a 6-item questionnaire used to assess the degree to which a specified health problem affected work productivity and regular activities over the past 7 days. The questions are: Q1 = currently employed. Q2 = hours missed due to health problems. Q3 = hours missed other reasons. Q4 = hours actually worked. Q5 = degree health affected productivity while working (0-10 scale). Q6 = degree health affected regular activities (0-10 scale). Subscale scores are calculated: Percent impairment while working due to health problem: Q5/10. The computed percentage range for each sub-scale is 0-100, where higher numbers indicate greater impairment and less productivity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=59 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=58 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 42, 46)
|
-23.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.90
|
-20.43 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.33
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 52, 55)
|
-8.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.66
|
-3.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.54
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 45, 47)
|
-22.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.55
|
-16.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.64
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 47, 50)
|
-12.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.94
|
-6.48 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.90
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 48, 50)
|
-21.22 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.74
|
-12.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.70
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 49, 46)
|
-16.53 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.69
|
-16.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.97
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 46, 43)
|
-16.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.66
|
-18.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.35
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 46, 43)
|
-18.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.76
|
-15.81 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.45
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 45, 47)
|
-22.89 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.04
|
-19.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.92
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 43, 43)
|
-22.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.96
|
-22.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.39
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 42, 41)
|
-24.29 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.06
|
-21.95 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.60
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 42, 41)
|
-23.57 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.47
|
-19.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.07
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 40, 40)
|
-25.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.69
|
-22.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.54
|
|
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 53, 56)
|
-11.47 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.71
|
-2.28 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.67
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
The WPAI assesses work productivity and impairment. It is a 6-item questionnaire used to assess the degree to which a specified health problem affected work productivity and regular activities over the past 7 days. The questions are: Q1 = currently employed. Q2 = hours missed due to health problems. Q3 = hours missed other reasons. Q4 = hours actually worked. Q5 = degree health affected productivity while working (0-10 scale). Q6 = degree health affected regular activities (0-10 scale). Subscale scores are calculated: Percent activity impairment due to health problem: Q6/10. The computed percentage range for each sub-scale is 0-100, where higher numbers indicate greater impairment and less productivity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=95 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 89, 94)
|
-10.70 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.80
|
-4.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.61
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 89, 95)
|
-11.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.45
|
-8.42 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.28
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 86, 93)
|
-18.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.15
|
-11.68 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.96
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 85, 92)
|
-18.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.35
|
-12.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.14
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 82, 90)
|
-19.88 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.77
|
-22.33 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.69
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 82, 89)
|
-20.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.14
|
-23.15 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.31
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 78, 86)
|
-20.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.96
|
-22.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.58
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 77, 85)
|
-27.14 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.85
|
-24.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.36
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 74, 85)
|
-24.46 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.93
|
-22.12 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.85
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 74, 84)
|
-25.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.80
|
-25.71 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.44
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 82)
|
-26.53 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.95
|
-25.73 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.73
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 69, 77)
|
-27.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.17
|
-27.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.97
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 77)
|
-26.96 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.32
|
-25.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.81
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 65, 73)
|
-30.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.01
|
-28.36 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.87
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA.
The WPAI assesses work productivity and impairment. It is a 6-item questionnaire used to assess the degree to which a specified health problem affected work productivity and regular activities over the past 7 days. The questions are: Q1 = currently employed. Q2 = hours missed due to health problems. Q3 = hours missed other reasons. Q4 = hours actually worked. Q5 = degree health affected productivity while working (0-10 scale). Q6 = degree health affected regular activities (0-10 scale). Subscale scores are calculated: Percent overall work impairment due to health problem: Q2/(Q2+Q4)+\[(1-Q2/(Q2+Q4))\*(Q5/10)\]. The computed percentage range for each sub-scale is 0-100, where higher numbers indicate greater impairment and less productivity.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=58 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=58 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 2 (N = 51, 56)
|
-7.43 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.81
|
0.86 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.74
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 52, 55)
|
-7.07 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.72
|
-1.82 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.59
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 8 (N = 47, 49)
|
-10.32 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.04
|
-4.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.09
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 48, 50)
|
-20.77 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.94
|
-12.09 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.89
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 16 (N = 49, 46)
|
-16.30 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.83
|
-16.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.86
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 45, 43)
|
-14.85 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.52
|
-18.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.68
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 32 (N = 46, 43)
|
-17.59 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.79
|
-16.53 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.33
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 40 (N = 45, 47)
|
-23.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.15
|
-20.52 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.03
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 45, 45)
|
-23.03 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.61
|
-17.54 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.87
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 56 (N = 42, 46)
|
-23.60 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.10
|
-21.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.43
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 43, 42)
|
-21.90 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.26
|
-22.27 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.46
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 80 (N = 42, 41)
|
-20.66 Units on a scale
Standard Error 4.15
|
-23.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.80
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 42, 41)
|
-24.00 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.52
|
-19.39 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.24
|
|
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 40, 40)
|
-25.76 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.73
|
-23.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 3.80
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
The MFI is a 20-item questionnaire that evaluates several aspects of fatigue. The General Fatigue Item is disclosed here. The general fatigue item contains four items, two of which are indicative for fatigue and two items contra-indicative for fatigue. Indicative items (eg, "I tire easily") are formulated in such a way that a high score suggests a high degree of fatigue. In case of contra-indicative items (eg, "I feel fit") a high score indicates a low degree of fatigue. Each item is scored on a 5-point numeric rating scale anchored at each end by "Yes, that is true" (scored 1) to "No, that is not true" (scored 5). Scoring for the MFI is done in such a way that higher scores indicate greater fatigue. Therefore, the items indicative for fatigue need to be recoded (1=5, 2=4, 3=3, 4=2, 5=1). For each scale a total score is calculated by summation of the scores of the individual items. Scores can range from the minimum of 4 to the maximum of 20. MFI-20 scale is copyrighted.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=95 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points
Week 4 (N = 89, 95)
|
-1.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.38
|
-0.64 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.36
|
|
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 85, 93)
|
-1.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.42
|
-1.08 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.39
|
|
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points
Week 24 (N = 83, 89)
|
-1.67 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.37
|
-2.69 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.40
|
|
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points
Week 48 (N = 77, 85)
|
-2.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.39
|
-2.84 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.39
|
|
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points
Week 68 (N = 72, 82)
|
-1.79 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.42
|
-3.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.45
|
|
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points
Week 92 (N = 69, 77)
|
-2.74 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.40
|
-3.18 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.52
|
|
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 65, 73)
|
-3.26 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.46
|
-3.04 Units on a scale
Standard Error 0.50
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline to Week 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
The MOS sleep scale consists of 12 items to measure 6 sleep dimensions: initiation (time to fall asleep), quantity (hours of sleep each night), maintenance, respiratory problems, perceived adequacy, somnolence (the last 4 items reported using a 6-item Likert scale ranging from 1 \[all of the time\] to 6 \[none of the time\]). The raw scores ranging from 1 to 6 are transformed to scores ranging from 0 to 100 before the indices are calculated. Therefore the reported scores, consisting of means of converted items, also range from 0 to 100. However, two indexes can be derived: Sleep problems index I (short form) and sleep problems index II (long form). Additional subscales can be derived: sleep disturbance, snoring, awaken shortness of breath or headache, sleep adequacy, sleep somnolence, sleep quantity, and optimal sleep. However, data for two indexes and additional subscales is not reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=90 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=95 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104
Week 4 (N = 89, 94)
|
-2.35 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.59
|
-0.85 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.50
|
|
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104
Week 12 (N = 85, 93)
|
-6.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.00
|
-4.10 Units on a scale
Standard Error 1.88
|
|
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104
Week 24 (N = 83, 89)
|
-11.01 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.64
|
-14.34 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.28
|
|
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104
Week 32 (N = 78, 86)
|
-13.17 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.30
|
-17.06 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.42
|
|
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104
Week 48 (N = 76, 85)
|
-11.97 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.60
|
-17.57 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.23
|
|
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104
Week 68 (N = 71, 82)
|
-10.40 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.56
|
-15.50 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.49
|
|
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104
Week 104 (N = 66, 76)
|
-17.92 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.78
|
-15.61 Units on a scale
Standard Error 2.66
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 12 and 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
The MCII asks participants to rate the level of improvement they have experienced in the 48 hours compared to when they started the study. Response options are "Improved - less pain", "No change", and "Worse - more pain." If the participant indicates that improvement has occurred, then they are asked to indicate how important that improvement is to them from "Not at all important" to "Very important'.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=88 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=94 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 88, 94)
|
59.09 Percentage of participants
|
44.68 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 75, 79)
|
76.00 Percentage of participants
|
81.01 Percentage of participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Weeks 12 and 104Population: mITT population defined as all randomized participants who took at least one dose of study drug, had at least one on-therapy evaluation and met the ASAS classification criteria for AxSpA. Missing data were imputed through LOCF approach.
PASS is defined as a symptom state that the participants consider acceptable.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=88 Participants
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
Placebo
n=94 Participants
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period). All participants who completed the 12-week double-blind period entered into a 92 week open-label period and received etanercept 50 mg once weekly and background NSAID.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time Points
Week 12 (N = 88, 94)
|
72.73 Percentage of participants
|
61.70 Percentage of participants
|
|
Percentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time Points
Week 104 (N = 74, 80)
|
79.73 Percentage of participants
|
88.75 Percentage of participants
|
Adverse Events
Etanercept
Serious events: 9 serious events
Other events: 86 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Placebo
Serious events: 8 serious events
Other events: 87 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=111 participants at risk
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period).
|
Placebo
n=113 participants at risk
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period).
|
|---|---|---|
|
Cardiac disorders
Myocarditis
|
0.90%
1/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.00%
0/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Ear and labyrinth disorders
Hearing impaired
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Haemorrhoids
|
0.90%
1/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.00%
0/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
General disorders
Pyrexia
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Hepatobiliary disorders
Cholelithiasis
|
2.7%
3/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.00%
0/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Anal abscess
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Contusion
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Ligament rupture
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Ligament sprain
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Meniscus injury
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Radius fracture
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Wound
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Intervertebral disc protrusion
|
0.90%
1/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.00%
0/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Spondyloarthropathy
|
1.8%
2/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.00%
0/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)
Uterine leiomyoma
|
0.90%
1/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.00%
0/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Multiple sclerosis
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Calculus urinary
|
0.00%
0/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
0.88%
1/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
Etanercept
n=111 participants at risk
Participants were treated with etanercept subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period).
|
Placebo
n=113 participants at risk
Participants were treated with placebo subcutaneous injection weekly plus stable background NSAID at optimal anti-inflammatory dose for 12 weeks (double-blind period).
|
|---|---|---|
|
General disorders
Injection site erythema
|
7.2%
8/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
5.3%
6/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Eye disorders
Uveitis
|
5.4%
6/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
2.7%
3/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhoea
|
9.9%
11/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
8.0%
9/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea
|
1.8%
2/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
6.2%
7/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
General disorders
Injection site reaction
|
6.3%
7/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
5.3%
6/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Bronchitis
|
6.3%
7/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
6.2%
7/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Gastroenteritis
|
7.2%
8/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
6.2%
7/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Influenza
|
6.3%
7/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
6.2%
7/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Nasopharyngitis
|
23.4%
26/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
20.4%
23/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pharyngitis
|
4.5%
5/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
7.1%
8/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Sinusitis
|
5.4%
6/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
3.5%
4/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Upper respiratory tract infection
|
9.0%
10/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
12.4%
14/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Back pain
|
1.8%
2/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
6.2%
7/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Myalgia
|
5.4%
6/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
2.7%
3/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Headache
|
8.1%
9/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
7.1%
8/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Rash
|
8.1%
9/111 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
2.7%
3/113 • Adverse events were reported from the signing of the informed consent until Week 104 visit.
The same event may appear as both an AE and a SAE. However, what is presented are distinct events. An event may be categorized as serious in one participant and as nonserious in another participant, or one participant may have experienced both a serious and nonserious event during the study.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee Pfizer has the right to review disclosures, requesting a delay of less than 60 days. Investigator will postpone single center publications until after disclosure of pooled data (all sites), less than 12 months from study completion/termination at all participating sites. Investigator may not disclose previously undisclosed confidential information other than study results.
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: OTHER