Skip to content

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

A Multicentre, 12 Week Double Blind Placebo Controlled Randomized Study Of Etanercept On A Background Nsaid In The Treatment Of Adult Subjects With Non Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis With A 92 Week Open Label Extension

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01258738
Acronym
EMBARK
Enrollment
225
Registered
2010-12-13
Start date
2011-02-28
Completion date
2014-10-31
Last updated
2015-10-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Spondylitis, Ankylosing

Keywords

Early ankylosing spondylitis (SpA) study; efficacy and safety and health out comes

Brief summary

This is a two part study. During period one there will be a comparison of Etanercept (ETN) against a placebo with both arms maintaining the background anti inflammatory drug prescribed by their Physician. The hypothesis is that Etanercept will be superior to the placebo arm as determined by the proportion of subjects achieving Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS)40 improvement at 12 weeks. This will be followed by 92 weeks extension where everyone in the trial receives Etanercept (ETN) and a background non steroidal anti inflammatory drug(NSAID).

Interventions

BIOLOGICALetanercept

In Period 1, subjects will receive in a prefilled syringe with 1.0 ml (test article Etanercept (SC) once weekly . Additionally they will continue to take the background non steroidal anti inflammatory drug(NSAID) in the tolerated dose agreed upon by the attending Physician.

DRUGBackground NSAID

Subject will continue to take a concomitant background non steroidal anti inflammatory drug(NSAID)as prescribed by their attending physician. The name and dose of this NSAID is the decision of the attending physician.

OTHERPLACEBO

In Period 1 will receive a prefilled syringe of Placebo for Etanercept Additionally they will continue to take the background non steroidal anti inflammatory drug(NSAID) in the tolerated dose agreed upon by the attending Physician.

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 49 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis as defined by Assessments in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS)criteria * Active symptoms defined as Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index{BASDAI) \> or = 4 * Axial symptoms of back pain with a less than favorable response to on steroidal anti inflammatory drugs at optimal dosage for greater than 4 weeks

Exclusion criteria

* Evidence of current or recent episode of uveitis * Evidence of IBD flare within 6 months * Previous treatment with an anti Tumor necrosis factor(TNF) * Active tuberculosis * Radiographic sacroiliitis grade 3-4 unilaterally or \>= 2 bilaterally

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants Achieving Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) 40 Response at Week 12Week 12ASAS 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.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104ASAS 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.
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104ASAS 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104ASDAS 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.
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Partial 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.
Time to ASAS Partial RemissionWeek 12The 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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).
Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Participants 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.
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASFI 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.
Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASDAI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASDAI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASDAI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASDAI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASDAI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASDAI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASDAI 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.
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Response 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.
Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Response 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.
Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104BASMI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointBaseline to Week 104BASMI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointBaseline to Week 104BASMI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointBaseline to Week 104BASMI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointBaseline to Week 104BASMI 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointBaseline to Week 104BASMI 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.
Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Chest 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).
Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Occiput-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.
Change From Baseline in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at 12 WeeksWeek 12The 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time PointsWeeks 12 and 104The 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time PointsWeeks 12 and 104The 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.
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104This 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.
Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total ScoreWeeks 12 and 104ASspiMRI-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).
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Forty-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).
Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Forty-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).
Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Each 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
Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104Assessment 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).
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104ESR 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.
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsBaseline to Week 104EQ-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.
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104EQ-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.
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104SF-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).
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104SF-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).
Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104This 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.
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104ASQoL 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).
Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104ASAS 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.
Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Baseline to Week 104The 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.
Percentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time PointsWeeks 12 and 104The 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'.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time PointsWeeks 12 and 104PASS is defined as a symptom state that the participants consider acceptable.
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsBaseline to Week 104The 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.

Countries

Argentina, Belgium, Colombia, Czechia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, United Kingdom

Participant flow

Recruitment details

This was a multicenter study conducted at 48 centers in 14 countries.

Pre-assignment details

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.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
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.
111
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.
113
Total224

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Double-blind PeriodAdverse Event31
Double-blind PeriodDid not meet inclusion criteria33
Double-blind PeriodProtocol Violation11
Double-blind PeriodWithdrawal by Subject22
Open-label PeriodAdverse Event45
Open-label PeriodDid not meet inclusion criteria01
Open-label PeriodInsufficient clinical response53
Open-label PeriodLost to Follow-up02
Open-label PeriodOther Reasons01
Open-label PeriodProtocol Violation22
Open-label PeriodWithdrawal by Subject56
Open-label PeriodWithdrawn due to pregnancy11

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicEtanerceptPlaceboTotal
Age, Continuous31.7 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8
32.0 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8
31.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.8
Sex: Female, Male
Female
41 Participants50 Participants91 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
70 Participants63 Participants133 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
86 / 11187 / 113
serious
Total, serious adverse events
9 / 1118 / 113

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) 40 Response at Week 12

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.

Time frame: Week 12

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) 40 Response at Week 1232.38 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Ankylosing Spondylitis (ASAS) 40 Response at Week 1215.74 Percentage of participants
Comparison: The null hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was not different from placebo as measured by the proportion of subjects achieving an ASAS 40 response after 12 weeks of treatment. The alternative hypothesis was that the efficacy of etanercept was different from placebo.~The primary endpoint was tested at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.006295% CI: [5.36, 27.92]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 88, 94)-1.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.54
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)-3.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.47
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 86)-3.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.49
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 83)-4.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.48
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)-4.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.52
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 73)-4.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.54
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)-4.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.53
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 88, 94)-1.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.51
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 83)-4.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.46
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)-3.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.41
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 73)-3.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.54
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 86)-3.67 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.43
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.328695% CI: [-1.55, 0.52]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 81, 84)-2.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.58
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 74, 75)-3.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.58
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 66, 75)-3.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.63
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 60, 66)-4.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.64
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 57, 60)-4.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.76
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 55, 62)-4.78 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.68
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 57, 60)-5.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.71
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 81, 84)-1.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.55
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 60, 66)-5.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.71
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 74, 75)-2.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.6
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 55, 62)-5.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.74
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Work Instability Index (AS-WIS) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 66, 75)-4.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.59
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.182995% CI: [-1.93, 0.37]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 105, 109)-3.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.85 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 105, 109)-3.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 105, 109)-3.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 105, 109)-3.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-1.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 105, 109)-3.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-0.75 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.87 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 105, 109)-3.51 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 105, 109)-3.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Global Index (BAS-G) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 105, 109)-3.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.020195% CI: [-0.99, -0.09]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4 and 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.055895% CI: [-1.02, 0.01]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 104)0.32 cmStandard Error 0.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)0.31 cmStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 104)0.63 cmStandard Error 0.17
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)0.20 cmStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 104)0.52 cmStandard Error 0.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)0.12 cmStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 104)0.61 cmStandard Error 0.17
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 104)0.43 cmStandard Error 0.19
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 104)0.67 cmStandard Error 0.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 104)0.38 cmStandard Error 0.17
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 104)0.49 cmStandard Error 0.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 104)0.49 cmStandard Error 0.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 105)0.16 cmStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 104)0.55 cmStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 105)0.69 cmStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 104)0.80 cmStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 104)0.72 cmStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 104)0.56 cmStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 104)0.74 cmStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 104)0.56 cmStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 104)0.63 cmStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 104)0.71 cmStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)0.44 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)0.61 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)0.37 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 104)0.68 cmStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 104)0.69 cmStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Chest Expansion at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 104)0.62 cmStandard Error 0.18
Comparison: Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.012995% CI: [-0.95, -0.11]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.600395% CI: [-0.61, 0.35]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.091195% CI: [-0.89, 0.07]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.314495% CI: [-0.73, 0.24]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 104)-4.29 mg/LStandard Error 1.17
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 104)-5.10 mg/LStandard Error 1.06
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 104)-4.28 mg/LStandard Error 1.16
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-4.49 mg/LStandard Error 0.71
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)-3.61 mg/LStandard Error 1.16
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)-4.07 mg/LStandard Error 1.33
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-2.78 mg/LStandard Error 1.14
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 104)-4.84 mg/LStandard Error 1.07
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 104)-4.62 mg/LStandard Error 1.1
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 104)-4.97 mg/LStandard Error 1.01
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 104)-4.88 mg/LStandard Error 1.1
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 104)-4.94 mg/LStandard Error 1.08
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 104)-5.20 mg/LStandard Error 1.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 104)-5.03 mg/LStandard Error 1.01
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 104)-4.26 mg/LStandard Error 1.08
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 104)-4.12 mg/LStandard Error 0.99
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 104)-3.82 mg/LStandard Error 1.08
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 104)-4.44 mg/LStandard Error 1.04
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 104)-4.59 mg/LStandard Error 1.02
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 104)-3.65 mg/LStandard Error 1.12
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 104)-4.56 mg/LStandard Error 1.04
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-1.46 mg/LStandard Error 0.67
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 104)-4.64 mg/LStandard Error 1.06
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)0.25 mg/LStandard Error 1.1
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 104)-3.88 mg/LStandard Error 1.01
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)-0.97 mg/LStandard Error 1.27
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 104)-3.93 mg/LStandard Error 1.09
PlaceboChange From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) Concentration Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)0.65 mg/LStandard Error 1.08
Comparison: Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-4.39, -1.66]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.000895% CI: [-6.09, -1.62]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.014395% CI: [-5.47, -0.61]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.003895% CI: [-5.23, -1.02]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 69, 78)0.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 86, 94)0.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 79, 86)0.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 93)0.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 83, 90)0.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 64, 75)0.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 82, 90)0.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 75, 86)0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 72, 83)0.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)0.14 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 72, 83)0.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)0.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 75, 86)0.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 64, 75)0.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 86, 94)0.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 82, 90)0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 93)0.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 79, 86)0.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 69, 78)0.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 83, 90)0.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.01 at Week 12 and \<0.001 thereafter, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.01t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.134195% CI: [-0.02, 0.21]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.044795% CI: [0, 0.14]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.134595% CI: [-0.02, 0.13]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 100, 104)-9.02 mm/hrStandard Error 1.61
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 100, 106)-10.00 mm/hrStandard Error 1.57
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 100, 106)-10.79 mm/hrStandard Error 1.84
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 100, 106)-11.34 mm/hrStandard Error 1.8
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 95, 102)-12.75 mm/hrStandard Error 2.03
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 95, 102)-14.22 mm/hrStandard Error 1.96
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 95, 102)-12.76 mm/hrStandard Error 2.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 95, 102)-11.49 mm/hrStandard Error 2.22
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 95, 102)-12.20 mm/hrStandard Error 2.05
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 95, 102)-13.03 mm/hrStandard Error 2.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 95, 102)-10.80 mm/hrStandard Error 2.17
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 95, 102)-10.74 mm/hrStandard Error 2.14
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 95, 102)-10.84 mm/hrStandard Error 2.28
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 95, 102)-10.51 mm/hrStandard Error 2.15
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 95, 102)-9.48 mm/hrStandard Error 1.74
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 100, 104)-1.30 mm/hrStandard Error 1.53
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 95, 102)-10.48 mm/hrStandard Error 1.74
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 100, 106)-3.98 mm/hrStandard Error 1.48
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 95, 102)-8.79 mm/hrStandard Error 1.79
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 100, 106)-4.81 mm/hrStandard Error 1.76
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 95, 102)-9.91 mm/hrStandard Error 1.9
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 100, 106)-2.68 mm/hrStandard Error 1.39
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 95, 102)-8.15 mm/hrStandard Error 1.74
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 95, 102)-9.77 mm/hrStandard Error 1.62
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 95, 102)-8.91 mm/hrStandard Error 1.7
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 95, 102)-8.82 mm/hrStandard Error 1.77
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 95, 102)-5.73 mm/hrStandard Error 2.05
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR) at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 95, 102)-10.13 mm/hrStandard Error 1.76
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-testp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-10.85, -4.58]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-9.16, -3.09]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.000995% CI: [-9.15, -2.41]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-10.34, -3.73]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 84, 92)9.33 mmStandard Error 2.97
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 79, 86)16.62 mmStandard Error 2.13
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 82, 90)13.21 mmStandard Error 2.23
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 82, 91)12.72 mmStandard Error 2.16
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)17.26 mmStandard Error 2.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 75, 86)16.29 mmStandard Error 2.37
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)16.32 mmStandard Error 2.33
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 85, 93)6.66 mmStandard Error 2.84
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 64, 75)19.81 mmStandard Error 2.45
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 86, 93)4.76 mmStandard Error 2.2
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 64, 75)23.69 mmStandard Error 2.71
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 86, 93)4.77 mmStandard Error 2.03
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 82, 90)16.61 mmStandard Error 2.26
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 79, 86)14.67 mmStandard Error 2.64
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 85, 93)3.05 mmStandard Error 2.65
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 84, 92)3.26 mmStandard Error 2.77
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 75, 86)18.72 mmStandard Error 2.37
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)17.90 mmStandard Error 2.6
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)21.08 mmStandard Error 2.73
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ)-5D VAS Score Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 82, 91)11.56 mmStandard Error 2.44
Comparison: With the exception of change from Baseline in the placebo group at Week 12, within group comparisons to baseline for all other treatment groups and time points were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: 0.037t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.996595% CI: [-4.39, 4.37]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.19795% CI: [-1.89, 9.1]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.039495% CI: [0.3, 11.84]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)-0.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.4
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 74)-1.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.4
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)-1.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.45
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 85)-1.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)-0.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.46
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-1.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.39
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)-0.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
PlaceboChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-1.76 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.41
PlaceboChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)-0.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)-0.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.43
PlaceboChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)-1.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
PlaceboChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)-2.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
PlaceboChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 74)-1.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.39
PlaceboChange From Baseline in HADS Anxiety Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 85)-1.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.635795% CI: [-0.52, 0.86]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.243995% CI: [-1.39, 0.36]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 85)-1.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)-0.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-1.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)-1.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.39
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)-0.45 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.46
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)-1.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 74)-1.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.4
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)-0.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.43
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 74)-1.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)-1.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)-0.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 85)-1.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)-1.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) Depression Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-1.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.462195% CI: [-0.9, 0.41]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.384295% CI: [-1.28, 0.5]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 24 (N = 83, 89)-11.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.64
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 48 (N = 76, 85)-11.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.6
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 12 (N = 85, 93)-6.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 68 (N = 71, 82)-10.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.56
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 32 (N = 78, 86)-13.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.3
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 104 (N = 66, 76)-17.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.78
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 4 (N = 89, 94)-2.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.59
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 104 (N = 66, 76)-15.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.66
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 4 (N = 89, 94)-0.85 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.5
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 12 (N = 85, 93)-4.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.88
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 24 (N = 83, 89)-14.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.28
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 32 (N = 78, 86)-17.06 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.42
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 48 (N = 76, 85)-17.57 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.23
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep Scale Score From Baseline to Week 104Week 68 (N = 71, 82)-15.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.49
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.355495% CI: [-4.7, 1.7]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.33595% CI: [-5.82, 1.99]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 89)-1.67 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.37
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-1.79 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.42
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 93)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.42
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)-2.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.4
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 85)-2.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.39
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 73)-3.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.46
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 95)-1.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 73)-3.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.5
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 95)-0.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 93)-1.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.39
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 89)-2.69 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.4
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 85)-2.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.39
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-3.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.45
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)-3.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.52
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.257895% CI: [-1.21, 0.33]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.433495% CI: [-1.21, 0.52]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)3.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.3
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 83)3.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.23
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)2.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.29
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)4.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.48
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 86)3.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.18
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 65, 75)4.90 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.34
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)2.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.02
PlaceboChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 65, 75)3.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.06
PlaceboChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)1.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.94
PlaceboChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)1.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.2
PlaceboChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)4.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.99
PlaceboChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 86)3.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 83)4.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.05
PlaceboChange From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)4.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.19
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.25295% CI: [-0.84, 3.19]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.498195% CI: [-1.63, 3.34]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)6.67 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.93
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 83)8.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.98
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)6.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.97
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)8.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.15
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 86)8.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.96
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 75)9.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.03
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)4.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.79
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 75)10.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.01
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 96)2.72 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.74
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 94)3.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.91
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 83, 91)7.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.78
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 77, 86)8.51 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.85
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 83)9.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.94
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 78)9.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.93
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.103595% CI: [-0.27, 2.9]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 4, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.013495% CI: [0.5, 4.26]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at 12 Weeks

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.

Time frame: Week 12

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at 12 Weeks-2.12 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.72
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at 12 Weeks-2.12 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.43
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.041495% CI: [-1.88, -0.04]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 56, 59)2.83 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.64
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 57, 59)1.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.35
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 53, 53)4.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.13
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 53, 55)-0.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.36
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 53, 52)-1.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.34
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 47, 47)-0.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.4
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 48, 46)-4.06 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.02
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 50, 50)-2.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.15
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 48, 47)-5.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.33
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 44, 49)-3.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.77
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 44, 44)-2.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.19
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 43, 44)2.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.45
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 45, 44)-1.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.31
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 42, 43)-6.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.45
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 44, 44)-7.51 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.69
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 56, 59)0.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.58
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 50, 50)-9.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.73
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 57, 59)0.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.25
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 45, 44)-8.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.29
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 53, 53)0.67 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.15
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 48, 47)-6.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.6
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 53, 55)-4.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.25
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 43, 44)-9.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.21
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 53, 52)-2.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.92
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 44, 49)-9.11 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.79
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 47, 47)-7.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.61
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 42, 43)-10.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.74
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Percent Work Time Missed Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 48, 46)-9.76 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.12
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.05, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.05t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.522695% CI: [-4.95, 9.68]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.623295% CI: [-4.9, 8.14]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.387795% CI: [-4.53, 11.57]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.240295% CI: [-3.22, 12.69]ANCOVA
Secondary

Change From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 45, 47)-22.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.04
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 53, 56)-11.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.71
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 45, 47)-22.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.55
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 49, 46)-16.53 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.69
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 42, 46)-23.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.9
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 47, 50)-12.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.94
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 43, 43)-22.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.96
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 46, 43)-16.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.66
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 42, 41)-24.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.06
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 52, 55)-8.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.66
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 42, 41)-23.57 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.47
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 46, 43)-18.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.76
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 40, 40)-25.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.69
EtanerceptChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 48, 50)-21.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.74
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 40, 40)-22.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.54
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 52, 55)-3.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.54
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 47, 50)-6.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.9
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 48, 50)-12.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.7
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 49, 46)-16.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.97
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 46, 43)-18.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.35
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 46, 43)-15.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.45
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 45, 47)-19.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.92
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 45, 47)-16.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.64
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 42, 46)-20.43 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.33
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 43, 43)-22.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.39
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 42, 41)-21.95 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.6
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 42, 41)-19.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.07
PlaceboChange From Baseline in WPAI: Percent Impairment While Working Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 53, 56)-2.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.67
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and thereafter, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.019395% CI: [-16.85, -1.52]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.17395% CI: [-12.41, 2.26]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.122495% CI: [-14.23, 1.71]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.046195% CI: [-18.11, -0.16]ANCOVA
Secondary

Changes From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)-1.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 107)-0.94 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 104)-1.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 104)-1.78 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 104)-1.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)-1.11 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)-1.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 104)-1.86 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 104)-1.79 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 104)-2.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 104)-1.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 104)-1.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 104)-2.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 104)-1.87 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 104)-1.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 104)-1.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 107)-0.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)-0.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 104)-1.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 104)-1.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 104)-1.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 104)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 104)-1.72 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 104)-1.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 104)-1.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)-0.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 104)-1.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES) at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)-1.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.353695% CI: [-0.64, 0.23]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.076995% CI: [-0.97, 0.05]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.469895% CI: [-0.7, 0.33]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.016795% CI: [-1.19, -0.12]ANCOVA
Secondary

Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)-0.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-1.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-2.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.86 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.72 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.69 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)-0.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-0.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-1.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.87 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.018695% CI: [-1.18, -0.11]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.010695% CI: [-1.01, -0.13]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.004895% CI: [-1.11, -0.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.001695% CI: [-1.31, -0.31]ANCOVA
Secondary

Changes From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-0.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)-0.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)-1.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.78 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-0.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)-0.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)-0.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.75 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.85 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.016495% CI: [-1.04, -0.11]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.009595% CI: [-0.95, -0.13]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.012795% CI: [-0.99, -0.12]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.016695% CI: [-0.99, -0.1]ANCOVA
Secondary

Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-1.10 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-1.54 cmStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-2.31 cmStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.96 cmStandard Error 0.36
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.97 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.79 cmStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.69 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.34 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.22 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.15 cmStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.07 cmStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.01 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.26 cmStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.28 cmStandard Error 0.34
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.27 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-0.31 cmStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.30 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-0.71 cmStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.43 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-1.34 cmStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.21 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.03 cmStandard Error 0.34
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.32 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.63 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.40 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.25 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.59 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Nocturnal Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.11 cmStandard Error 0.29
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.009195% CI: [-1.62, -0.23]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.009795% CI: [-1.38, -0.19]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.010195% CI: [-1.45, -0.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.003195% CI: [-1.61, -0.33]ANCOVA
Secondary

Changes From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 12 (n = 105, 109)-2.32 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 40 (n = 100, 105)-3.30 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-0.95 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 48 (n = 100, 105)-3.09 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 56 (n = 100, 105)-3.10 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 16 (n = 100, 105)-2.73 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 68 (n = 100, 105)-3.02 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-2.19 cmStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 80 (n = 100, 105)-2.95 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 24 (n = 100, 105)-2.76 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 92 (n = 100, 105)-3.30 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-1.52 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 104 (n = 100, 105)-3.22 cmStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 32 (n = 100, 105)-2.58 cmStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 104 (n = 100, 105)-3.47 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-0.37 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-0.88 cmStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-1.18 cmStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 12 (n = 105, 109)-1.39 cmStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 16 (n = 100, 105)-2.64 cmStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 24 (n = 100, 105)-2.92 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 32 (n = 100, 105)-2.87 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 40 (n = 100, 105)-3.20 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 56 (n = 100, 105)-3.17 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 68 (n = 100, 105)-3.23 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 80 (n = 100, 105)-3.17 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 92 (n = 100, 105)-3.33 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in VAS Score for Total Back Pain at Time PointsWeek 48 (n = 100, 105)-3.14 cmStandard Error 0.25
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.006495% CI: [-1.49, -0.25]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.040795% CI: [-1.12, -0.02]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.034995% CI: [-1.24, -0.05]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.002195% CI: [-1.65, -0.37]ANCOVA
Secondary

Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 89, 94)-10.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.8
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 95)-11.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.45
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 86, 93)-18.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.15
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 92)-18.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.35
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 82, 90)-19.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.77
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 82, 89)-20.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.14
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 78, 86)-20.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.96
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 77, 85)-27.14 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.85
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 74, 85)-24.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.93
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 74, 84)-25.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.8
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-26.53 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.95
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 69, 77)-27.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.17
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)-26.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.32
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 73)-30.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.01
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 72, 82)-25.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.73
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 89, 94)-4.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.61
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 77, 85)-24.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.36
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 89, 95)-8.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.28
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 69, 77)-25.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.81
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 86, 93)-11.68 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.96
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 74, 85)-22.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.85
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 85, 92)-12.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.14
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 69, 77)-27.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.97
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 82, 90)-22.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.69
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 74, 84)-25.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.44
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 82, 89)-23.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.31
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 65, 73)-28.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.87
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Activity Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 78, 86)-22.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.58
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.037295% CI: [-11.58, -0.36]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.212695% CI: [-7.98, 1.79]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.03395% CI: [-12.79, -0.54]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.039795% CI: [-13.38, -0.33]ANCOVA
Secondary

Changes From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 51, 56)-7.43 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.81
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 52, 55)-7.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.72
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 47, 49)-10.32 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.04
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 48, 50)-20.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.94
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 49, 46)-16.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.83
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 45, 43)-14.85 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.52
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 46, 43)-17.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.79
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 45, 47)-23.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.15
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 45, 45)-23.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.61
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 42, 46)-23.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.1
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 43, 42)-21.90 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.26
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 42, 41)-20.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.15
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 42, 41)-24.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.52
EtanerceptChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 40, 40)-25.76 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.73
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 43, 42)-22.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.46
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 51, 56)0.86 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.74
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 45, 47)-20.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.03
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 52, 55)-1.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.59
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 42, 41)-19.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.24
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 47, 49)-4.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.09
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 45, 45)-17.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.87
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 48, 50)-12.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 4.89
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 42, 41)-23.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.8
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 49, 46)-16.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 2.86
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 42, 46)-21.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.43
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 45, 43)-18.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.68
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 40, 40)-23.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.8
PlaceboChanges From Baseline in WPAI - Overall Work Impairment Due to Health Problems at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 46, 43)-16.53 Units on a scaleStandard Error 3.33
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001 at Week 16 and at Week 32 and thereafter, from paired t test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.038295% CI: [-16.12, -0.46]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.164895% CI: [-12.69, 2.19]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.147695% CI: [-14.11, 2.15]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.068795% CI: [-18.03, 0.68]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 106)-0.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)-0.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)-1.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 104, 108)-1.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N= 99, 104)-1.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N= 99, 104)-1.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N= 99, 104)-1.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 99, 104)-1.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 99, 104)-1.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 99, 104)-1.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 99, 104)-1.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 99, 104)-1.53 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 99, 104)-1.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 99, 104)-1.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 99, 104)-1.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 106)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 99, 104)-1.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)-0.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 99, 104)-1.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)-0.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 99, 104)-1.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 104, 108)-0.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 99, 104)-1.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N= 99, 104)-1.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 99, 104)-1.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N= 99, 104)-1.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 99, 104)-1.68 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) High Sensitivity CRP (hsCRP) Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N= 99, 104)-1.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-0.74, -0.34]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-0.81, -0.41]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-0.85, -0.37]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total Score

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).

Time frame: Weeks 12 and 104

Population: 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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total ScoreWeek 104 (N= 73, 80)-0.79 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total ScoreWeek 12 (N= 95 105)-0.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total ScoreWeek 104 (N= 73, 80)-0.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Activity (ASspiMRI-a) Total ScoreWeek 12 (N= 95 105)-0.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.013295% CI: [-0.72, -0.08]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-1.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 105, 109)-1.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.68 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.87 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-0.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.57 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 105, 109)-1.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.72 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Discomfort at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.268895% CI: [-0.92, 0.26]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.086695% CI: [-1.17, 0.08]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.027795% CI: [-1.34, -0.08]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.23995% CI: [-1.04, 0.26]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-1.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-1.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.86 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-1.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.68 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-1.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.32 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.95 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Fatigue/Tiredness at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.031695% CI: [-1.09, -0.05]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.097395% CI: [-0.99, 0.08]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.021695% CI: [-1.27, -0.1]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.242595% CI: [-1.03, 0.26]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-1.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.95 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.94 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.90 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-1.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-0.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-0.68 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.06 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of How Long Stiffness Lasts at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.092895% CI: [-1, 0.08]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.013995% CI: [-1.27, -0.15]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.001795% CI: [-1.53, -0.36]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.000895% CI: [-1.61, -0.43]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 101, 106)-2.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 101, 106)-2.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-4.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-3.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-1.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.45 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-1.83 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-1.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-4.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-4.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-4.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-4.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-4.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.45 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-4.06 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 101, 106)-1.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 101, 106)-1.43 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-3.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-4.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Morning Stiffness at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-4.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.005895% CI: [-1.37, -0.24]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.006495% CI: [-1.42, -0.24]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.000295% CI: [-1.85, -0.6]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.013495% CI: [-1.49, -0.17]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-1.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-2.32 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-2.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-3.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.32 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.85 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.83 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-4.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-1.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-4.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-1.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-4.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-4.11 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-3.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-4.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-4.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Neck/Back/Hip Pain at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.000795% CI: [-1.56, -0.43]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.007395% CI: [-1.39, -0.22]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.009495% CI: [-1.48, -0.21]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.01295% CI: [-1.54, -0.19]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-1.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-1.69 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)2.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.67 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-0.68 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-1.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.87 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.51 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASDAI Level of Pain/Swelling at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.455995% CI: [-0.84, 0.38]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.034595% CI: [-1.28, -0.05]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.03495% CI: [-1.3, -0.05]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.063495% CI: [-1.24, 0.03]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-1.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.76 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.78 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-1.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-1.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.56 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-1.83 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.85 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-1.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.57 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Bending Forward at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.69 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.017395% CI: [-1.19, -0.12]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.161895% CI: [-0.97, 0.16]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.015395% CI: [-1.25, -0.13]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.086695% CI: [-1.05, 0.07]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.57 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-1.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-1.78 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-1.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-1.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-1.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-1.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Climbing Steps Without Aid at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.24395% CI: [-0.79, 0.2]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.038495% CI: [-1.09, -0.03]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.079795% CI: [-1.03, 0.06]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.218695% CI: [-0.9, 0.21]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 104, 107)-0.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 104, 108)-1.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 104, 108)-1.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)-2.11 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 105)-2.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 105)-2.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 105)-2.43 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 105)-2.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 105)-2.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 105)-2.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 105)-2.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 105)-2.75 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 105)-2.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 105)-3.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 105)-2.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 104, 107)-0.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 105)-2.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 104, 108)-0.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 105)-2.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 104, 108)-1.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 105)-2.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)-1.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 105)-2.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 105)-2.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 105)-2.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 105)-2.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 105)-2.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Full Day Activities at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 105)-2.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.002995% CI: [-1.28, -0.27]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.014795% CI: [-1.21, -0.13]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.005695% CI: [-1.28, -0.22]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.00195% CI: [-1.52, -0.39]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.94 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-1.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-1.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-1.79 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.45 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.53 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-1.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-1.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.90 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting Out of an Arm-less Chair at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.141395% CI: [-0.95, 0.14]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.028495% CI: [-1.14, -0.06]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.065995% CI: [-1.07, 0.03]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.009895% CI: [-1.26, -0.18]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.95 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-1.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 105, 108)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.75 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.53 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.51 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 105, 108)-1.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.18 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.90 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Getting-up Off-floor From Back at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.14195% CI: [-0.96, 0.14]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.229995% CI: [-0.88, 0.21]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.322195% CI: [-0.87, 0.29]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.189195% CI: [-0.99, 0.2]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-1.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-1.40 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-1.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-1.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-1.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-1.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.14 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.83 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.27 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-0.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.69 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-1.94 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Looking Over Shoulder at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.004495% CI: [-1.27, -0.24]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.045595% CI: [-1.09, -0.01]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.17595% CI: [-0.91, 0.17]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.037995% CI: [-1.12, -0.03]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 104, 107)-0.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 104, 108)-1.06 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 104, 108)-1.51 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 109)-1.69 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 105)-2.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 105)-2.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 105)-2.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 105)-2.79 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 105)-2.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 105)-2.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 105)-2.67 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 105)-2.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 105)-2.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 105)-3.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 105)-2.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 104, 107)-0.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 105)-2.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 104, 108)-0.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 105)-2.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 104, 108)-0.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 105)-2.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 109)-0.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 105)-2.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 105)-1.79 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 105)-2.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 105)-2.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 105)-2.59 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Physically Demanding Activities at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 105)-2.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.003795% CI: [-1.26, -0.25]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.004495% CI: [-1.35, -0.25]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.010495% CI: [-1.26, -0.17]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.00695% CI: [-1.33, -0.22]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.94 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-1.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-1.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-1.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-1.95 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-1.85 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-1.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-1.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-1.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-1.95 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-1.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-1.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-1.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-1.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-0.57 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-1.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-1.75 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-1.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Putting on Socks at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.082695% CI: [-0.98, 0.06]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.153895% CI: [-0.96, 0.15]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.072895% CI: [-1.04, 0.05]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.097595% CI: [-0.99, 0.08]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-1.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-1.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-1.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-1.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-1.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-1.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-1.83 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-1.76 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-1.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-1.66 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-1.67 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-1.76 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Reaching up High at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-1.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.226895% CI: [-0.8, 0.19]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.114595% CI: [-0.93, 0.1]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.051295% CI: [-1, 0]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.050995% CI: [-1.02, 0]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-1.84 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.53 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-1.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.33 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-2.56 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-2.72 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-2.74 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 2 (N= 105, 107)-0.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 4 (N= 105, 108)-0.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 8 (N= 105, 108)-0.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-2.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-1.93 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-1.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-2.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-2.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASFI Standing Unsupported for 10 Minutes at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-2.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.10895% CI: [-0.9, 0.09]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.038995% CI: [-1.06, -0.03]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.118195% CI: [-0.98, 0.11]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.227195% CI: [-0.94, 0.22]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time Point

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)3.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)5.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.35
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)6.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.5
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)5.32 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.43
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)4.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.42
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)5.56 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.51
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)1.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)5.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.48
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)4.46 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.52
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)5.70 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.44
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)5.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.57
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)6.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.43
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)5.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.37
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)6.14 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.45
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)4.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.09
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)8.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)8.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)0.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.19
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)2.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)3.86 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.34
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)2.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.44
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)7.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)5.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.18
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)6.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)5.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.19
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)6.90 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.19
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)6.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Cervical Rotation Degree by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)8.10 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.23
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.764595% CI: [-2.06, 2.8]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.417895% CI: [-1.48, 3.55]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.44395% CI: [-1.67, 3.79]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.109595% CI: [-0.54, 5.31]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time Point

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)4.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.7
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)8.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.38
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)8.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.57
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)8.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.38
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)3.25 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.75
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)8.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.5
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)4.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.5
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)9.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.48
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)6.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.44
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)9.26 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.55
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)0.75 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.22
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)9.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.55
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)7.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.41
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)9.80 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.55
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)4.76 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)8.72 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.35
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.15
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)1.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.42
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)1.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.61
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)1.81 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.66
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)3.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)9.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.34
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)5.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.35
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)5.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.34
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)6.32 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.33
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)7.42 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.38
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)7.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.37
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Intermalleolar Distance Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)8.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.32
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.455695% CI: [-1.46, 3.24]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.054395% CI: [-0.05, 5.75]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.175495% CI: [-1.02, 5.53]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.398595% CI: [-1.93, 4.82]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time Point

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 100, 105)1.06 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.49
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 100, 106)1.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.51
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 100, 106)1.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.53
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 100, 106)1.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.62
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 98, 105)1.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.55
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 98, 105)1.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.66
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 98, 105)2.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.57
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 98, 105)1.86 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.59
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 98, 105)2.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.55
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 98, 105)1.82 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.54
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 98, 105)2.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.58
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 98, 105)1.96 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.59
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 98, 105)2.14 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.6
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 98, 105)1.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.59
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 98, 105)1.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.41
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 100, 105)0.69 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.46
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 98, 105)1.57 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 100, 106)1.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.48
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 98, 105)1.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 100, 106)0.91 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.5
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 98, 105)1.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 100, 106)0.43 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.58
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 98, 105)1.52 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.4
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 98, 105)1.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 98, 105)1.43 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 98, 105)1.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.34
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 98, 105)1.65 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.37
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Lateral Side Flexion Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 98, 105)1.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.433295% CI: [-0.57, 1.32]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.994795% CI: [-0.98, 0.98]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.155895% CI: [-0.28, 1.75]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.048895% CI: [0.03, 2.39]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time Point

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 89, 90)0.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 89, 90)0.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 89, 90)0.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 89, 90)0.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 86, 86)0.71 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 86, 86)0.98 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 86, 86)0.73 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 86, 86)0.68 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 86, 86)0.75 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 86, 86)1.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 86, 86)1.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 86, 86)1.38 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.38
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 86, 86)1.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.35
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 86, 86)0.99 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.36
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 86, 86)0.89 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 89, 90)0.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 86, 86)0.77 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 89, 90)0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 86, 86)0.88 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.29
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 89, 90)0.12 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 86, 86)0.63 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 89, 90)0.04 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 86, 86)0.97 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.31
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 86, 86)0.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 86, 86)0.79 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.32
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 86, 86)0.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 86, 86)0.92 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.33
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Modified Schobers Test Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 86, 86)0.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.28
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.950495% CI: [-0.46, 0.49]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.497195% CI: [-0.7, 0.34]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.899995% CI: [-0.47, 0.54]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.971295% CI: [-0.6, 0.62]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time Point

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)0.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-0.31 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.29 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)0.14 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)0.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)0.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-0.07 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-0.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-0.28 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)0.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-0.24 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.26
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-0.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-0.39 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-0.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 2 (N= 105, 108)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-0.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 4 (N= 105, 109)-0.37 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-0.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 8 (N= 105, 109)-0.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)0.03 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-0.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-0.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-0.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)0.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)0.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-0.15 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in BASMI Tragus to Wall Score by Time PointWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)0.01 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.16
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.282395% CI: [-0.18, 0.62]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.402995% CI: [-0.23, 0.58]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.51195% CI: [-0.25, 0.51]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.584495% CI: [-0.32, 0.56]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 98, 105)-0.56 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 98, 105)-0.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 98, 105)-0.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 103, 108)-0.08 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 98, 105)-0.60 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 103, 109)-0.30 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.12
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 98, 105)-0.54 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 103, 109)-0.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 98, 105)-0.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 103, 109)-0.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 98, 105)-0.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 98, 105)-0.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 98, 105)-0.61 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 98, 105)-0.48 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 98, 105)-0.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 98, 105)-0.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 98, 105)-0.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 98, 105)-0.44 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 98, 105)-0.49 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 98, 105)-0.58 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 98, 105)-0.62 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 98, 105)-0.34 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 98, 105)-0.55 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 103, 108)-0.13 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 103, 109)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 103, 109)-0.41 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 103, 109)-0.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 98, 105)-0.35 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test, after Week 24. For label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.674195% CI: [-0.18, 0.28]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.389695% CI: [-0.33, 0.13]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.746895% CI: [-0.22, 0.31]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.687195% CI: [-0.35, 0.23]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time Points

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

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)-0.00 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)-0.09 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)-0.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.02
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-0.19 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.08
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 104)-0.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 104)-0.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 104)-0.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 104)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.11
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 104)-0.17 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.13
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 107)0.02 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)-0.05 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.03
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)-0.16 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.02
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 104)-0.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.09
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 108)-0.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.07
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 104)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 104)-0.22 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 104)-0.20 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 104)-0.23 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Score at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 104)-0.21 Units on a scaleStandard Error 0.1
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.614895% CI: [-0.08, 0.05]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.254795% CI: [-0.11, 0.03]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.120895% CI: [-0.08, 0.01]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.829195% CI: [-0.13, 0.17]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 100, 102)-0.27 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.17
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 96, 102)-0.80 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 100, 105)-0.62 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.13
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 101, 105)-0.71 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.14
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 96, 102)-0.83 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 101, 105)-0.60 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.12
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 96, 102)-0.76 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.17
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 96, 102)-0.80 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.2
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 32 (N= 96, 102)-0.75 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 96, 102)-0.86 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 96, 102)-0.86 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 96, 102)-0.85 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 96, 102)-0.83 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 96, 102)-0.89 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 96, 102)-0.82 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 96, 102)-0.68 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 96, 102)-0.71 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 100, 102)-0.08 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.16
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 96, 102)-0.76 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 100, 105)-0.45 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.13
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 32 (N= 96, 102)-0.64 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.2
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 101, 105)-0.52 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.13
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 96, 102)-0.79 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 96, 102)-0.83 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 96, 102)-0.76 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 101, 105)-0.29 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 96, 102)-0.84 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Swollen Joints at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 96, 102)-0.59 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.19
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.243895% CI: [-0.52, 0.13]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.195895% CI: [-0.42, 0.09]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.162495% CI: [-0.46, 0.08]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.009195% CI: [-0.54, -0.08]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 96, 102)-2.65 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.42
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 96, 102)-2.44 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.43
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 96, 102)-2.43 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.4
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 96, 102)-2.60 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.43
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 96, 102)-2.45 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.37
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 96, 102)-2.72 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.42
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 100, 102)-1.99 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.36
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 100, 105)1.52 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.41
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 101, 105)-1.93 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.41
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 101, 105)-1.55 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.38
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 96, 102)-1.93 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.39
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 96, 102)-2.46 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.43
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 96, 102)-1.96 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.42
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 96, 102)-2.42 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.42
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 96, 102)-2.35 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.49
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 96, 102)-2.95 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.55
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 100, 105)-1.27 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.39
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 96, 102)-3.25 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.58
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 96, 102)-3.09 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.55
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 96, 102)-3.30 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.61
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 101, 105)-2.02 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.39
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 96, 102)-3.07 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.6
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 96, 102)-2.83 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.57
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 96, 102)-3.29 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.58
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 101, 105)-1.56 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.36
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 96, 102)-3.48 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.58
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 96, 102)-3.16 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.53
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Number of Tender Joints at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 100, 102)-1.38 Number of jointsStandard Error 0.35
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.083695% CI: [-1.32, 0.08]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.540295% CI: [-1.02, 0.54]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.816795% CI: [-0.69, 0.87]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.989195% CI: [-0.72, 0.73]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 106)-0.21 cmStandard Error 0.19
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)-0.37 cmStandard Error 0.2
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)-0.09 cmStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)-0.28 cmStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 104)-0.24 cmStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 104)-0.11 cmStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 104)-0.20 cmStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 104)-0.34 cmStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 104)-0.25 cmStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 104)-0.42 cmStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 104)-0.42 cmStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 104)-0.34 cmStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 104)-0.29 cmStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 104)-0.73 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 99, 104)-0.21 cmStandard Error 0.16
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 104, 106)-0.12 cmStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 99, 104)-0.24 cmStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 104, 108)-0.36 cmStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 99, 104)-0.49 cmStandard Error 0.15
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 104, 108)-0.27 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 99, 104)-0.42 cmStandard Error 0.13
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 104, 108)-0.41 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 99, 104)-0.55 cmStandard Error 0.17
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 99, 104)-0.29 cmStandard Error 0.11
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 99, 104)-0.26 cmStandard Error 0.14
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 99, 104)-0.38 cmStandard Error 0.18
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 99, 104)-0.52 cmStandard Error 0.19
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Occiput-to-wall Test at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 99, 104)-0.31 cmStandard Error 0.16
Comparison: Most within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 2p-value: 0.647695% CI: [-0.46, 0.29]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 4p-value: 0.977795% CI: [-0.4, 0.39]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 8p-value: 0.445395% CI: [-0.28, 0.65]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12, data only. Week 12p-value: 0.578295% CI: [-0.33, 0.6]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Weeks 12 and 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 97, 105)-3.99 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.72
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 74, 79)-6.00 units on a scaleStandard Error 1.15
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 97, 105)-0.86 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.43
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC Score for the Sacroiliac Joint at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 74, 79)-3.36 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.84
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: <0.00195% CI: [-4.16, -1.7]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Weeks 12 and 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 95, 105)-2.12 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.49
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 74, 80)-2.08 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.91
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 95, 105)-1.16 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.47
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in SPARCC - Spine 6 Discovertebral Units (DVU) Total Score at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 74, 80)-0.78 units on a scaleStandard Error 0.49
Comparison: Within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.041495% CI: [-1.88, -0.04]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)-1.00 cmStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-1.34 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-1.85 cmStandard Error 0.32
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-2.06 cmStandard Error 0.31
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.81 cmStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-2.92 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-2.99 cmStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.38 cmStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.24 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.30 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.31 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.10 cmStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.34 cmStandard Error 0.28
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.33 cmStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)-3.57 cmStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)-0.08 cmStandard Error 0.26
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)-3.33 cmStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)-0.55 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)-3.65 cmStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)-1.02 cmStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)-3.36 cmStandard Error 0.27
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)-1.26 cmStandard Error 0.3
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)-3.49 cmStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)-2.65 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)-3.45 cmStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)-3.21 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)-3.75 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in VAS Score for Subject Assessment of Disease Activity at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)-3.23 cmStandard Error 0.27
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results included unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.010295% CI: [-1.4, -0.19]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.000795% CI: [-1.44, -0.39]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.005795% CI: [-1.35, -0.23]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.007795% CI: [-1.44, -0.22]ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time Points

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).

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 101, 104)-1.40 cmStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 101, 105)-1.91 cmStandard Error 0.25
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 101, 105)-2.39 cmStandard Error 0.27
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 100, 105)-2.74 cmStandard Error 0.29
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 96, 101)-3.36 cmStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 96, 101)-3.66 cmStandard Error 0.2
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 96, 101)-3.66 cmStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 96, 101)-3.83 cmStandard Error 0.21
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 96, 101)-3.93 cmStandard Error 0.23
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 96, 101)-3.98 cmStandard Error 0.24
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 96, 101)-3.98 cmStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 96, 101)-4.03 cmStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 96, 101)-4.00 cmStandard Error 0.22
EtanerceptMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 96, 101)-4.12 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 96, 101)-3.60 cmStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 101, 104)-0.80 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 96, 101)-3.44 cmStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 101, 105)-1.49 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 96, 101)-3.43 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 101, 105)-2.10 cmStandard Error 0.25
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 96, 101)-3.53 cmStandard Error 0.21
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 100, 105)-2.04 cmStandard Error 0.28
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 96, 101)-3.54 cmStandard Error 0.24
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 96, 101)-2.78 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 96, 101)-3.67 cmStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 96, 101)-3.25 cmStandard Error 0.23
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 96, 101)-3.78 cmStandard Error 0.22
PlaceboMean Change From Baseline in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) Physician Global Assessments at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 96, 101)-3.38 cmStandard Error 0.22
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.015695% CI: [-1.26, -0.13]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.011195% CI: [-1.06, -0.14]ANCOVA
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.093695% CI: [-0.91, 0.07]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.267895% CI: [-0.81, 0.23]ANCOVA
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 106)30.48 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)37.14 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)48.57 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)52.38 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 16 (N= 100, 105)64.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)65.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)64.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)73.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)71.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)70.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)69.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)65.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)71.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)70.00 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)76.19 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 106)16.04 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)73.33 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 108)26.85 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)74.29 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 108)37.96 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)72.38 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)36.70 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)70.48 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 16 (N= 100, 105)65.71 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)76.19 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)71.43 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)79.05 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 20 Response at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)71.43 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.018995% CI: [3.2, 25.68]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.098395% CI: [-2.17, 22.75]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.086795% CI: [-2.63, 23.84]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.019595% CI: [3.1, 29.43]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 2 (N=105, 106)15.24 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 4 (N=105, 108)20.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 8 (N=105, 108)28.57 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 105, 108)33.33 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 16 (N= 100, 105)42.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 24 (N= 100, 105)44.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 32 (N= 100, 105)47.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 100, 105)55.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 100, 105)52.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 100, 105)52.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 100, 105)54.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 100, 105)49.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 100, 105)57.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 100, 105)56.00 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 68 (N= 100, 105)58.10 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 2 (N=105, 106)3.77 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 40 (N= 100, 105)53.33 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 4 (N=105, 108)14.81 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 92 (N= 100, 105)61.90 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 8 (N=105, 108)15.74 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 48 (N= 100, 105)53.33 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 12 (N= 105, 108)14.81 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 80 (N= 100, 105)58.10 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 16 (N= 100, 105)38.10 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 56 (N= 100, 105)59.05 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 24 (N= 100, 105)51.43 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 104 (N= 100, 105)61.90 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 40 Response at Time PointsWeek 32 (N= 100, 105)52.38 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.005995% CI: [3.69, 19.24]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.378695% CI: [-4.98, 15.35]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.030495% CI: [1.79, 23.87]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.002395% CI: [7.29, 29.75]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 102, 105)15.69 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 103, 107)23.30 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 103, 107)33.01 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)33.01 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)37.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)41.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)40.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)45.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)49.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)42.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)42.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)39.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)46.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)43.00 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)43.81 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 102, 105)2.86 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)40.95 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 103, 107)8.41 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)47.62 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 103, 107)11.21 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)45.71 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)10.38 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)37.14 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)34.29 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)45.71 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)42.86 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)40.95 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS 5/6 Response at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)40.95 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: <0.000195% CI: [11.85, 33.41]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.002195% CI: [5.09, 20.57]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.00295% CI: [5.18, 24.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: <0.000195% CI: [10.92, 32.67]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)21.90 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)29.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)11.43 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)32.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)34.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)28.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)10.48 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)40.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)40.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)38.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)39.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)40.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)24.76 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)37.00 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)11.93 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)49.52 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)49.52 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)57.14 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)2.78 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)3.67 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)9.17 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)48.57 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)28.57 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)42.86 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)41.90 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)45.71 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)37.14 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving ASAS Partial Remission at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)43.81 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.020995% CI: [2.58, 23.09]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only.~Week 2p-value: 0.017995% CI: [1.82, 15.48]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.061195% CI: [-0.03, 13.65]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.014195% CI: [3.14, 22.32]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: All within group comparisons to baseline were \<0.001, from paired t-test. For open-label period results include unadjusted mean changes and standard errors, no covariate adjustments were applied.p-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time Points

PASS is defined as a symptom state that the participants consider acceptable.

Time frame: Weeks 12 and 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 88, 94)72.73 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 74, 80)79.73 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 88, 94)61.70 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 74, 80)88.75 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.128595% CI: [-2.51, 24.56]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)41.90 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)56.19 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)66.67 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)64.76 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)73.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)77.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)77.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)86.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)81.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)81.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)80.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)81.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)82.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)84.00 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)90.48 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)33.33 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)87.62 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)42.20 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)88.57 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)51.38 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)87.62 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)56.88 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)88.57 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)82.86 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)85.71 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)86.67 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)90.48 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 20 at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)84.76 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.275595% CI: [-5.15, 20.92]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.19595% CI: [-4.39, 21.54]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.027895% CI: [0.72, 27.26]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.017495% CI: [2.28, 28.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time Points

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.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)43.81 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)45.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)60.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)50.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)49.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)58.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)59.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)61.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)56.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)62.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)64.00 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)17.14 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)24.76 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)37.14 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 100, 105)70.48 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 105, 109)23.85 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 68 (N = 100, 105)66.67 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 16 (N = 100, 105)59.05 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 4 (N = 105, 109)11.01 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 80 (N = 100, 105)66.67 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 24 (N = 100, 105)62.86 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 2 (N = 105, 108)5.56 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 32 (N = 100, 105)59.05 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 92 (N = 100, 105)71.43 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 40 (N = 100, 105)61.90 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 48 (N = 100, 105)64.76 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 8 (N = 105, 109)22.02 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With BASDAI 50 at Time PointsWeek 56 (N = 100, 105)65.71 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 12p-value: 0.002995% CI: [7.54, 32.37]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 2p-value: 0.0195% CI: [3.18, 19.99]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 4p-value: 0.01295% CI: [3.62, 23.89]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 2, 4, 8, 12 data only. Week 8p-value: 0.021395% CI: [3.04, 27.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time Points

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'.

Time frame: Weeks 12 and 104

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 88, 94)59.09 Percentage of participants
EtanerceptPercentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 75, 79)76.00 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time PointsWeek 12 (N = 88, 94)44.68 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Minimally Clinically Important Improvement (MCII) at Time PointsWeek 104 (N = 75, 79)81.01 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made. Descriptive analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 14.4195% CI: [0.04, 28.78]ANCOVA
Secondary

Time to ASAS Partial Remission

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.

Time frame: Week 12

Population: 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.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
EtanerceptTime to ASAS Partial Remission43.3 percentage of participants
PlaceboTime to ASAS Partial Remission22.3 percentage of participants
Comparison: Secondary and supportive analyses were performed at 2-sided alpha = 0.05 significance level. No adjustment for multiple testing was made.~Comparative analysis was carried out for Week 12 data only.p-value: 0.0022Log Rank

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 11, 2026