Trial · NCT04092452
Registered outcomes25
Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.
1 to 20 of 25
Download this page as JSON| List | Outcome | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Percentage of Participants Achieving Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) at Week 16- Minimum Risk (MR) [Full Analysis Set (FAS), Non-responder Imputation (NRI)]. | At week 16 | HiSCR response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count relative to baseline, and no increase in abscess count, and no increase in draining fistula count. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving HiSCR Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 - MR (FAS, NRI). | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 | HiSCR response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count relative to baseline, and no increase in abscess count, and no increase in draining fistula count. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving a Total Abscess and Inflammatory Nodule (AN) Count of 0 or 1; 0, 1 or 2 at Week 16 - MR (FAS, NRI). | At week 16 | This estimand was intended to provide difference between treated and placebo in percentage of participants with a total AN count of 0 or 1, or 0, 1 or 2, respectively at week 16. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Least Squares (LS) Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in AN Count at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) [FAS, Multiply Imputed (MI)]. | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was implemented for statistical testing, which included terms of treatment group, the stratification factors, and the baseline value as the independent variable. |
| Secondary | Least Squares Mean of Absolute Score in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI). | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | The IHS4 score was calculated by the number of nodules, the number of abscesses, and the number of draining tunnels. IHS4 score = (number of nodules × 1) + (number of abscesses × 2) + {number of draining tunnels (fistulae/sinuses) × 4}. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome. |
| Secondary | Least Squares Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI). | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | The IHS4 score was calculated by the number of nodules, the number of abscesses, and the number of draining tunnels. IHS4 score = (number of nodules × 1) + (number of abscesses × 2) + {number of draining tunnels (fistulae/sinuses) × 4}. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome. |
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Who Experienced a Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) Flare at Weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 - MR [FAS, Only Observed Data (OBS)]. | At weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 | HS flare was defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count with a minimum increase of 2 relative to Baseline. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS30), at Worst, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - MR (FAS With Baseline ≥3, NRI) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | The rate comparing treatment and placebo groups at each visit was analyzed using CMH test with MR weighting strategy between each of active treatment group and placebo. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. NRS30 was defined as ≥30% reduction and ≥1 unit reduction from baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) Skin Pain NRS. The range of skin pain was from 0 to 10. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome. Baseline was defined as the average of all values recorded between Day -6 and Day 1. Weekly data were average values of daily observations over 7 days. NRI (non-responder imputation) for missing values which were related to withdrawal and all other events except for COVID-19. |
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS30), on Average, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - MR (FAS With Baseline ≥3, NRI) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | The rate comparing treatment and placebo groups at each visit was analyzed using CMH test with MR weighting strategy between each of active treatment group and placebo. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. NRS30 was defined as ≥30% reduction and ≥1 unit reduction from baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) Skin Pain NRS. The range of skin pain was from 0 to 10. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome. Baseline was defined as the average of all values recorded between Day -6 and Day 1. Weekly data were average values of daily observations over 7 days. NRI (non-responder imputation) for missing values which were related to withdrawal and all other events except for COVID-19. |
| Secondary | Least Squares Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, at Worst, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 -ANCOVA (FAS With Baseline ≥3, MI) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Least Squares Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, on Average, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 -ANCOVA (FAS With Baseline ≥3, MI) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Least Squares Mean of Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, at Worst, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Least Squares Mean of Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, on Average, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. |
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving Erythema Response Among Participants With Baseline Erythema Score ≥2 in at Least 1 Region at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - MR (FAS, NRI) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | Erythema response was defined as achieving erythema score of 1 or 0 in all affected anatomic regions among participants who had an erythema score of 2 or more in at least 1 anatomic region at baseline. NRI for missing values which were related to withdrawal and all other events except for COVID-19. A four-point ordinal scale ranging was used: 0 (no redness), 1 (faint but discernible pink coloration), 2 (moderate red coloration), and 3 (very red or bright red coloration). |
| Secondary | Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities) | Up to 20 weeks | The treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were considered as an adverse event that started during the effective duration of treatment. All events that started on or after the first dosing day and time/start time, if collected, but before the last dose plus the lag time was flagged as TEAEs. |
| Secondary | Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related) | Up to 20 weeks | The treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were considered as an adverse event that started during the effective duration of treatment. All events that started on or after the first dosing day and time/start time, if collected, but before the last dose plus the lag time was flagged as TEAEs. |
| Secondary | Number of Participants With Incidence of Post-baseline Vital Signs of Clinical Concern - Increase From Baseline (Safety Analysis Set) | Up to 20 weeks | The vital signs were measured included temperature (Oral, Tympanic, Axillary or Temporal), pulse rate (beats/min) and blood pressure (mmHg). |
| Secondary | Number of Participants With Incidence of Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) (Safety Analysis Set) | Up to 20 weeks | Laboratory test abnormalities included hematology, chemistry, urinalysis and biomarker. |
| Secondary | Number of Participants With Incidence of Post-baseline Electrocardiogram (ECG) Values of Clinical Concern (Safety Analysis Set) | Up to 20 weeks | ECG parameters included QT interval, QTc interval, PR interval, and QRS complex. |
| Secondary | Least Squares Mean of Absolute Score in Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) Symptom Items up to Week 16 - Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) (FAS, OBS) | At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 | The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Symptom Items were 5 single items that assessed patient self-reported symptoms related to HS. The participants were asked to rate each symptom on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, with 0 indicating no symptom experience and 10 indicating the worst possible symptom. The symptoms assessed include: pain, tenderness, swelling, tiredness, and bother of lesion appearance. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 indicating no symptom experience and 10 indicating the worst possible symptom. These concepts were scored separately, and were not combined into a composite score. When using mixed effect model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis, only observed data were used and missing data were not imputed. |
Source ClinicalTrials.govtrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0
Sources 3
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
- ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain
Each source's terms
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
- ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)
ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.
For software
Read this list from software.
Twenty rows a page, as JSON. No key.
GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT04092452/registered