Skip to content

Subcutaneous Treatment In Randomized Subjects To Evaluate Safety And Efficacy In Generalized Lupus Erythematosus

A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter Dose-ranging Study To Evaluate The Efficacy And Safety Of Pf-04236921 In Subjects With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (Sle)

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01405196
Acronym
BUTTERFLY
Enrollment
183
Registered
2011-07-29
Start date
2011-12-31
Completion date
2014-03-31
Last updated
2017-12-19

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

Conditions

Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic

Keywords

double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, dose-ranging, efficacy, safety, lupus.

Brief summary

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare efficacy of 3 dose levels of PF-04236921 to placebo in subjects with generalized lupus using a measure called the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index. The study will evaluate secondary and exploratory measures as well.

Interventions

BIOLOGICALPF-04236921

subcutaneous injection; administered at day 1, weeks 8, 16.

Sponsors

Pfizer
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Male or female subjects between ages of 18 and 75 years old at time of signing consent. * Have a clinical diagnosis of SLE according to 1997 update on the revised 1982 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. * Have a unequivocally positive anti-nuclear antibody (ANA) test result. * Active disease at screening defined by both: SLEDAI-2K score greater than or equal to 6 and BILAG Level A disease in more than or equal to 1 organ system (except renal or central nervous system) or BILAG B disease in more than or equal to 2 organ systems if no level A disease in present.

Exclusion criteria

* Any prior history of treatment with PF-04236921, or anti-IL-6 agent; * Have received any of the following within 364 days of day 1: a biologic investigational agent other than B cell targeted therapy; required 3 or more courses of systemic corticosteroids for concomitant conditions; history of previously untreated or current evidence of active or untreated latent infection with Tuberculosis (TB), evidence of prior untreated or currently active TB by chest radiography, residing with or frequent close contact with an individual with active TB.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 24Week 24SRI components include:Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000(SLEDAI-2K),British Isles Lupus Assessment Group(BILAG) 2004,Physician's Global Assessment(PhGA).Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: greater than or equal to(\>=) 4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening (less than \[\<\] 0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids,immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. SLEDAI-2K:assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). BILAG:assesses disease extent, severity (range: A\[severe\] to E\[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status(range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24SRI components include: modified SLEDAI-2K (SLEDAI-2K without standard parameters Low complement and Leukopenia), BILAG 2004, PhGA. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: \>=4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening (\<0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. Modified SLEDAI-2K: assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 102; higher score = higher severity). BILAG: assesses disease extent, severity (range: A \[severe\] to E \[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status (range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).
Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24BICLA include: BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K, PhGA of disease activity. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet the definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: BILAG-2004 improvement (all A scores at baseline improved to B/C/D and all B scores improved to C or D); no worsening in disease activity (no new BILAG-2004 A scores or =\<1 new B score); no worsening of total SLEDAI-2K score; no significant deterioration (\<10 percent \[%\] worsening) in analogue PhGA. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids,immunosuppressants/antimalarial, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. BILAG:assesses disease extent, severity (range: A\[severe\] to E\[no disease\]). SLEDAI-2K:assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status(range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).
Percentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24Week 24SRI components include: SLEDAI-2K, BILAG 2004 and PhGA. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: \>=4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening(\<0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. SLEDAI-2K: assesses improvement in disease activity(range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). BILAG: assesses disease extent, severity (range: A\[severe\] to E \[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status (range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]). Model percent estimates reported only for 'Reduction in SLEDAI Score','No Worsening in PhGA' categories; for remaining categories, raw percentages reported
Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsBaseline up to Week 52Pre-defined criteria were established for each laboratory test to define the values that would be identified as of potential clinical importance. Laboratory values included Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) \[\>5.0 - 10.0\*Upper limit of normal range (ULN)\], Albumin \[\<26-20 gram per liter (g/L)/ \<20 g/L\], Amylase \[\>2.0 - 5.0\*ULN\], Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) \[\>5.0 - 10.0\*ULN\], Creatine Kinase (CK) \[\>5.0 - 10.0\* ULN/ \>10.0\*ULN\], Glucose (Hyperglycemia) \[\>13.9 - 27.8 millimoles/liter (mmol/L)\], Hemoglobin (HGB) \[\<80 - 65 g/L/ \<65 g/L\], Lipase \[\>2.0 - 5.0\*ULN\], Lymphocytes (Lymph.)(Absolute \[Abs\]) \[\<0.5 - 0.2\*10\^3/microliter (UL)/ \<0.2\*10\^3/UL\], Platelets \[\<50-25\*10\^3/UL/ \<25\*10\^3/UL\], potassium (low) \[\<3.0 - 2.5 mmol/L\], Sodium (low) \[\<130 - 120 mmol/L\], Total Neutrophils (TN) (Abs) \[\<1.0 - 0.5\*10\^3/UL/ \<0.5\*10\^3/UL\], Triglycerides \[\>5.7 - 11.4 mmol/L\], White Blood Cell Count (WBC) \[\<2.0 - 1.0\*10\^3/UL/ \<1.0\*10\^3/UL\].
Number of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Adverse EventsBaseline up to Week 52An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Number of participants who discontinued due to adverse events were reported.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Baseline up to Week 52An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to Week 52 that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Number of participants with treatment-emergent AEs or SAEs (excluding infectious AEs or SAEs and injection site reactions) were reported. AEs include both SAEs and non-SAEs.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Baseline up to Week 52An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to Week 52 that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Number of participants with treatment-emergent infectious AEs or SAEs were reported. AEs include both SAEs and non-SAEs.
Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsBaseline up to Week 52Criteria for potentially clinically important (PCI) findings in ECG were defined as: heart rate \<=40 beats per minute (bpm) or \>=120 bpm; PR interval \>=220 millisecond (msec); QT interval \>=480 msec; QRS interval \>=120 msec; QT interval corrected using the Fridericia formula (QTcF) \>=500msec; no sinus rhythm.
Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsBaseline up to Week 52Criteria for PCI findings in vital signs were defined as: sitting systolic blood pressure (Increase from baseline \>=20 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) and \>=160 mm Hg or a decrease from baseline \>=20 mm Hg and \<=90 mm Hg) and sitting diastolic blood pressure (increase from baseline \>=15 mm Hg and \>=90 mm Hg or decrease from baseline \>=15 mm Hg and \<=60 mm Hg), pulse rate (increase from baseline \>=15 beats/min and \>=120 beats/min or decrease from baseline \>=15 beats/min and \<=50 beats /min), body temperature (increase of \>=2 degree Fahrenheit (F) and temperature \>=101 degree F) and weight (change of \>=7% in body weight)
Number of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Baseline up to Week 52Human serum samples were analyzed for the presence or absence of anti-PF-04236921 antibodies. A positive ADA sample was further tested for neutralizing antibodies using a validated assay.
Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Day 1, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24Serum PF-04236921 concentrations over time were summarized.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20SRI components include:SLEDAI-2K ,BILAG 2004, PhGA. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: \>=4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening (\<0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids,immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. SLEDAI-2K: assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). BILAG:assesses disease extent, severity (range: A \[severe\] to E \[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status(range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).
Percentage of Participants With Normalized Serological ActivityBaseline up to Week 24Serologic activity was to be assessed in the subgroup of participants who had positive serologic activity at baseline.
Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores at BaselineBaselineParticipants assessed their disease activity using a 100 millimeter (mm) VAS. Participants answered the following question Considering all the ways your disease affects you, how are you feeling today? Response was recorded by placing a mark on the scale between 0 (very well) and 100 (extremely bad).
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24Participants assessed their disease activity using a 100 mm VAS. Participants answered the following question Considering all the ways your disease affects you, how are you feeling today? Response was recorded by placing a mark on the scale between 0 (very well) and 100 (extremely bad).
Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a single index value characterizing current health status using a 100-point VAS (0= worst imaginable health state, 100= best imaginable health state).
Thirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at BaselineBaselineSF-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. These 8 aspects can also be summarized as PCS and mental component score MCS. The score for each aspect and PCS/MCS is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24SF-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. These 8 aspects can also be summarized as physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS). The score for each aspect and PCS/MCS is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24SF-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. Vitality sub-score is a component of SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire and assesses energy and fatigue. The vitality score ranged from 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24The SF-6D focuses on seven of the eight health domains covered by the SF-36 Health Survey: physical functioning, role participation (combined role-physical and role-emotional), social functioning, bodily pain, mental health, and vitality. The SF-6D is an attempt to derive a single index from the SF-36 Health Survey for use in economic evaluation studies. As such, it represents a summary score based on a subset of the SF-36 data. Consequently, in lieu of the SF-6D, PCS and MCS SF-36 results are being provided. The score for each aspect and PCS/MCS is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at BaselineBaselineFACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score).
Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.
Percentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 12, 16, 20, 24Participants were given supplemental corticosteroids at baseline to control disease activity, if necessary. The steroid taper was based on participant's symptoms. Participants recorded their steroid usage on a diary card. Least Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.

Countries

Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Peru, Poland, Puerto Rico, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, United States

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

Due to safety reason, dosing in 200 mg reporting arm was prematurely terminated and the participants were discontinued from it. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan was amended after it and 200 mg reporting arm was not included in efficacy data analysis.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)
Participants received 10 mg dose of PF-04236921 subcutaneously in the anterolateral right and left thighs at Week 0, Week 8 and Week 16.
45
PF-04236921 50 mg
Participants received 50 mg dose of PF-04236921 subcutaneously in the anterolateral right and left thighs at Week 0, Week 8 and Week 16.
47
PF-04236921 200 mg
Participants received 200 mg dose of PF-04236921 subcutaneously in the anterolateral right and left thighs at Week 0, Week 8 and Week 16.
46
Placebo
Placebo matching to PF-04236921 administered subcutaneously in the anterolateral right and left thighs at Week 0, Week 8 and Week 16.
45
Total183

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002FG003
Overall StudyAdverse Event2202
Overall StudyDeath1030
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up2231
Overall StudyOther2250
Overall StudyStudy Terminated by Sponsor0090
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject4636

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)PF-04236921 50 mgPF-04236921 200 mgPlaceboTotal
Age, Continuous39.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.48
38.3 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 10.49
41.3 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.29
42.3 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.04
40.4 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.6
Sex: Female, Male
Female
43 Participants44 Participants43 Participants38 Participants168 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
2 Participants3 Participants3 Participants7 Participants15 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
20 / 4524 / 4732 / 4626 / 45
serious
Total, serious adverse events
4 / 453 / 477 / 468 / 45

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 24

SRI components include:Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000(SLEDAI-2K),British Isles Lupus Assessment Group(BILAG) 2004,Physician's Global Assessment(PhGA).Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: greater than or equal to(\>=) 4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening (less than \[\<\] 0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids,immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. SLEDAI-2K:assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). BILAG:assesses disease extent, severity (range: A\[severe\] to E\[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status(range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).

Time frame: Week 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of participants analyzed= participants who completed through the Week 24 visit. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 2459.9 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 2439.2 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 2440.1 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Point estimates of the Odds ratio (ORs) as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.p-value: 0.07690% CI: [0.89, 5.62]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.p-value: 0.52890% CI: [0.38, 2.41]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24

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. These 8 aspects can also be summarized as physical component score (PCS) and mental component score (MCS). The score for each aspect and PCS/MCS is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 164.73 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 41.97 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 81.57 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 123.80 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 204.49 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 242.94 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 43.95 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 85.48 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 126.06 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 166.25 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 206.39 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 245.98 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 245.53 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 124.66 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 41.45 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 43.24 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 242.14 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 81.97 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 205.63 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 84.79 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 122.50 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 201.71 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 162.79 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 164.50 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 162.95 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 203.28 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 162.48 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 242.85 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 41.28 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 82.11 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 203.29 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 41.45 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 122.82 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 82.05 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 242.94 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) PCS and MCS at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 122.52 Units on a scale
Comparison: MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.53, 3.59]
Comparison: MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.54, 2.58]
Comparison: MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.78, 4.34]
Comparison: MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.28, 4.84]
Comparison: MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.86, 4.26]
Comparison: MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.98, 3.15]
Comparison: MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.03, 3.03]
Comparison: MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.09, 2.92]
Comparison: MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.03, 2.99]
Comparison: MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.17, 2.85]
Comparison: MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-4.58, 1.43]
Comparison: MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.72, 2.3]
Comparison: PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.14, 5.2]
Comparison: PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.84, 5.89]
Comparison: PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.7, 5.76]
Comparison: PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [1.24, 6.3]
Comparison: PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.57, 5.63]
Comparison: PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.5, 5.56]
Comparison: PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.53, 4.46]
Comparison: PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.2, 5.17]
Comparison: PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.65, 4.32]
Comparison: PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.47, 4.5]
Comparison: PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.15, 4.82]
Comparison: PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.11, 5.08]
Secondary

Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24

EQ-5D is a standardized, participant-administered measure of health outcome. It provides a descriptive profile for 5 dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression), using 3 levels (no, moderate, or extreme problems) and a single index value characterizing current health status using a 100-point VAS (0= worst imaginable health state, 100= best imaginable health state).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 209.68 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 127.47 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 166.84 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 249.33 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 85.00 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 43.17 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 122.51 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 41.45 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 82.82 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 166.65 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 205.19 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 245.04 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 87.02 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 245.38 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 205.09 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 124.85 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 4-0.47 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 165.16 Units on a scale
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-2.56, 9.83]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-8.21, 4.18]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-3.57, 8.82]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-4.51, 7.88]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-1.61, 10.79]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-2.24, 10.15]
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-4.17, 8.01]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-10.25, 1.85]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-4.56, 7.55]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-5.96, 6.15]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-6.39, 5.71]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline tender score.90% CI: [-8.39, 3.71]
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24

FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 43.16 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 84.39 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 125.07 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 165.81 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 205.37 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 244.39 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 243.30 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 42.77 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 165.53 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 204.32 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 83.41 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 123.59 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 82.44 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 122.26 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 242.70 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 161.93 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 41.08 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 203.42 Units on a scale
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the Least Square (LS) mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.26, 5.42]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.38, 5.29]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.53, 6.15]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.54, 7.22]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.39, 5.29]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.65, 5.03]
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.61, 4.99]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.31, 4.26]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.96, 4.61]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.32, 6.89]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.38, 4.19]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.68, 3.88]
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24

Participants assessed their disease activity using a 100 mm VAS. Participants answered the following question Considering all the ways your disease affects you, how are you feeling today? Response was recorded by placing a mark on the scale between 0 (very well) and 100 (extremely bad).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 2-9.17 mm
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 4-3.24 mm
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 6-5.48 mm
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 8-4.17 mm
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 12-9.21 mm
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 16-8.75 mm
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 20-11.52 mm
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 24-9.17 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 6-3.62 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 20-9.03 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 8-6.03 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 12-4.20 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 16-10.20 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 2-1.54 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 4-4.01 mm
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 24-7.45 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 6-7.24 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 4-1.24 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 2-3.58 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 8-7.11 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 20-6.77 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 16-5.99 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 12-6.88 mm
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 24-10.64 mm
Comparison: Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-12.3, 1.49]
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-8.21, 5.42]
Comparison: Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-5.71, 8.32]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-2.22, 11.57]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-11.04, 3.07]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-9.87, 4.1]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-13.37, 0.94]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-5.17, 9.13]
Comparison: Week 2: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-4.7, 8.84]
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-9.62, 4]
Comparison: Week 6: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-2.95, 10.9]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-4.29, 9.4]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-3.67, 9.94]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-11.91, 2.03]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-9.61, 4.32]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using linear mixed effect model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit, treatment by visit and baseline VAS.90% CI: [-4.48, 9.8]
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24

The SF-6D focuses on seven of the eight health domains covered by the SF-36 Health Survey: physical functioning, role participation (combined role-physical and role-emotional), social functioning, bodily pain, mental health, and vitality. The SF-6D is an attempt to derive a single index from the SF-36 Health Survey for use in economic evaluation studies. As such, it represents a summary score based on a subset of the SF-36 data. Consequently, in lieu of the SF-6D, PCS and MCS SF-36 results are being provided. The score for each aspect and PCS/MCS is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 41.97 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 81.57 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 123.80 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 164.73 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 204.49 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 242.94 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 43.95 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 85.48 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 126.06 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 166.25 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 206.39 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 245.98 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 245.53 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 41.45 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 43.24 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 124.66 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 81.97 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 242.14 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 205.63 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 122.50 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 84.79 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 201.71 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 162.79 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 164.50 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 162.95 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 203.28 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 162.48 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 242.85 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 41.28 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 82.11 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 203.29 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 41.45 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 82.05 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 122.82 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24MCS: Week 122.52 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Short Form-6 Dimension (SF-6D) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24PCS: Week 242.94 Units on a scale
Comparison: MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.53, 3.59]
Comparison: MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.54, 2.58]
Comparison: MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.78, 4.34]
Comparison: MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.28, 4.84]
Comparison: MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-1.86, 4.26]
Comparison: MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.98, 3.15]
Comparison: MCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.03, 3.03]
Comparison: MCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.09, 2.92]
Comparison: MCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.03, 2.99]
Comparison: MCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.17, 2.85]
Comparison: MCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-4.58, 1.43]
Comparison: MCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.72, 2.3]
Comparison: PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.14, 5.2]
Comparison: PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.84, 5.89]
Comparison: PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.7, 5.76]
Comparison: PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [1.24, 6.3]
Comparison: PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.57, 5.63]
Comparison: PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.5, 5.56]
Comparison: PCS Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.53, 4.46]
Comparison: PCS Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.2, 5.17]
Comparison: PCS Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.65, 4.32]
Comparison: PCS Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.47, 4.5]
Comparison: PCS Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-0.15, 4.82]
Comparison: PCS Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.11, 5.08]
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24

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. Vitality sub-score is a component of SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire and assesses energy and fatigue. The vitality score ranged from 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 43.92 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 86.53 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 1210.75 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 1610.60 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 2011.91 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Change From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 249.58 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 246.69 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 44.78 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 166.41 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 207.78 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 86.55 Units on a scale
PF-04236921 50 mgChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 126.41 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 82.61 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 127.19 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 245.25 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 162.75 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 43.45 Units on a scale
PlaceboChange From Baseline in Vitality Scores at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24Week 204.79 Units on a scale
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-6.33, 7.27]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.88, 10.72]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.25, 10.36]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [1.05, 14.66]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [0.32, 13.92]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.47, 11.13]
Comparison: Week 4: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-5.4, 8.05]
Comparison: Week 8: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-2.75, 10.62]
Comparison: Week 12: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-7.47, 5.91]
Comparison: Week 16: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.02, 10.35]
Comparison: Week 20: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-3.7, 9.68]
Comparison: Week 24: Analysis was done using the ANCOVA model; CI parameter being the LS mean difference from that model.90% CI: [-5.24, 8.13]
Secondary

Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Baseline

FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score).

Time frame: Baseline

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Baseline25.91 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.7
PF-04236921 50 mgFunctional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Baseline29.38 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.506
PlaceboFunctional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score at Baseline25.96 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.76
Secondary

Number of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Adverse Events

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Number of participants who discontinued due to adverse events were reported.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: Safety population defined as all participants who had at least one dose of investigational product.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Adverse Events3 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Adverse Events2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Adverse Events3 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants Who Discontinued Due to Adverse Events3 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)

Human serum samples were analyzed for the presence or absence of anti-PF-04236921 antibodies. A positive ADA sample was further tested for neutralizing antibodies using a validated assay.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: Safety population defined as all participants who had at least one dose of investigational product.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Anti-drug Antibodies1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Neutralizing Antibodies0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Neutralizing Antibodies0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Anti-drug Antibodies0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Anti-drug Antibodies1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Neutralizing Antibodies0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Anti-drug Antibodies0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies (ADAs) and Neutralizing Antibodies (Nabs)Neutralizing Antibodies0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests Results

Pre-defined criteria were established for each laboratory test to define the values that would be identified as of potential clinical importance. Laboratory values included Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT) \[\>5.0 - 10.0\*Upper limit of normal range (ULN)\], Albumin \[\<26-20 gram per liter (g/L)/ \<20 g/L\], Amylase \[\>2.0 - 5.0\*ULN\], Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) \[\>5.0 - 10.0\*ULN\], Creatine Kinase (CK) \[\>5.0 - 10.0\* ULN/ \>10.0\*ULN\], Glucose (Hyperglycemia) \[\>13.9 - 27.8 millimoles/liter (mmol/L)\], Hemoglobin (HGB) \[\<80 - 65 g/L/ \<65 g/L\], Lipase \[\>2.0 - 5.0\*ULN\], Lymphocytes (Lymph.)(Absolute \[Abs\]) \[\<0.5 - 0.2\*10\^3/microliter (UL)/ \<0.2\*10\^3/UL\], Platelets \[\<50-25\*10\^3/UL/ \<25\*10\^3/UL\], potassium (low) \[\<3.0 - 2.5 mmol/L\], Sodium (low) \[\<130 - 120 mmol/L\], Total Neutrophils (TN) (Abs) \[\<1.0 - 0.5\*10\^3/UL/ \<0.5\*10\^3/UL\], Triglycerides \[\>5.7 - 11.4 mmol/L\], White Blood Cell Count (WBC) \[\<2.0 - 1.0\*10\^3/UL/ \<1.0\*10\^3/UL\].

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: Safety population defined as all participants who had at least one dose of investigational product. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs)<0.5-0.2* 10^3/UL6 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: <26-20 g/L1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAmylase1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK >10.0*ULN0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs) <0.2*10^3/UL1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <25*10^3/UL0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs) <0.5*10^3/UL1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsGlucose (Hyperglycemia)1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsALT2 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <2.0 - 1.0*10^3/UL4 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPotassium (low)2 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <80 - 65 g/L1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAST0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <50 - 25*10^3/UL0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs)<1.0-0.5*10^3/UL4 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <65 g/L1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <1.0*10^3/UL1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: < 20 g/L0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTriglycerides0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLipase0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK: >5.0 -10.0*ULN0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsSodium (low)0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: < 20 g/L1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs)<0.5-0.2* 10^3/UL9 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPotassium (low)1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs) <0.2*10^3/UL0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <50 - 25*10^3/UL0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <25*10^3/UL0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAmylase1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsALT0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTriglycerides1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAST1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK: >5.0 -10.0*ULN1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs) <0.5*10^3/UL1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK >10.0*ULN1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: <26-20 g/L1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsGlucose (Hyperglycemia)1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <1.0*10^3/UL0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs)<1.0-0.5*10^3/UL5 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <80 - 65 g/L0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <2.0 - 1.0*10^3/UL2 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <65 g/L0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsSodium (low)0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLipase1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <50 - 25*10^3/UL0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: <26-20 g/L1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: < 20 g/L0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAmylase1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAST0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK: >5.0 -10.0*ULN1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK >10.0*ULN1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsGlucose (Hyperglycemia)0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <80 - 65 g/L0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <65 g/L0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLipase1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs)<0.5-0.2* 10^3/UL4 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs) <0.2*10^3/UL0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsALT0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <25*10^3/UL0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPotassium (low)1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsSodium (low)1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs)<1.0-0.5*10^3/UL3 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs) <0.5*10^3/UL1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTriglycerides0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <2.0 - 1.0*10^3/UL2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <1.0*10^3/UL0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <1.0*10^3/UL0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsSodium (low)0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <80 - 65 g/L1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsGlucose (Hyperglycemia)2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsWBC <2.0 - 1.0*10^3/UL2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs)<1.0-0.5*10^3/UL2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK >10.0*ULN0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsCK: >5.0 -10.0*ULN0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsALT0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTN (Abs) <0.5*10^3/UL0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAST1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAmylase1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPotassium (low)1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsTriglycerides2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <50 - 25*10^3/UL2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: < 20 g/L0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsPlatelets <25*10^3/UL1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs) <0.2*10^3/UL0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLymph.(Abs)<0.5-0.2* 10^3/UL8 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsAlbumin: <26-20 g/L1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsLipase0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Clinically Significant Laboratory Tests ResultsHGB: <65 g/L0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) Findings

Criteria for potentially clinically important (PCI) findings in ECG were defined as: heart rate \<=40 beats per minute (bpm) or \>=120 bpm; PR interval \>=220 millisecond (msec); QT interval \>=480 msec; QRS interval \>=120 msec; QT interval corrected using the Fridericia formula (QTcF) \>=500msec; no sinus rhythm.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: Safety population defined as all participants who had at least one dose of investigational product. Here, N (Number of participants analyzed) signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure for each group respectively.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsHeart Rate <=40 beats/min or >=120 beats/min0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsPR Interval >=200 msec2 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQT Interval >=480 msec2 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQRS Interval >=120 msec3 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQTcF >=500 msec2 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsRhythm (Not Sinus Rhythm)0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsRhythm (Not Sinus Rhythm)0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQRS Interval >=120 msec1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsHeart Rate <=40 beats/min or >=120 beats/min0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQT Interval >=480 msec0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsPR Interval >=200 msec1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQTcF >=500 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsPR Interval >=200 msec1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQT Interval >=480 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQRS Interval >=120 msec2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsRhythm (Not Sinus Rhythm)0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQTcF >=500 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsHeart Rate <=40 beats/min or >=120 beats/min0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQTcF >=500 msec0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsRhythm (Not Sinus Rhythm)1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsPR Interval >=200 msec2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQRS Interval >=120 msec2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsHeart Rate <=40 beats/min or >=120 beats/min0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important (PCI) Electrocardiogram (ECG) FindingsQT Interval >=480 msec0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs Findings

Criteria for PCI findings in vital signs were defined as: sitting systolic blood pressure (Increase from baseline \>=20 millimeter of mercury (mm Hg) and \>=160 mm Hg or a decrease from baseline \>=20 mm Hg and \<=90 mm Hg) and sitting diastolic blood pressure (increase from baseline \>=15 mm Hg and \>=90 mm Hg or decrease from baseline \>=15 mm Hg and \<=60 mm Hg), pulse rate (increase from baseline \>=15 beats/min and \>=120 beats/min or decrease from baseline \>=15 beats/min and \<=50 beats /min), body temperature (increase of \>=2 degree Fahrenheit (F) and temperature \>=101 degree F) and weight (change of \>=7% in body weight)

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: Safety population defined as all participants who had at least one dose of investigational product.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsTemperature0 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure14 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsWeight12 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Pulse Rate1 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Systolic Blood Pressure8 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Pulse Rate1 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsTemperature0 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsWeight23 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure14 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Systolic Blood Pressure3 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Pulse Rate0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Systolic Blood Pressure3 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure12 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsTemperature0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsWeight14 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsTemperature0 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Diastolic Blood Pressure14 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Systolic Blood Pressure5 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsSitting Pulse Rate1 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Potentially Clinically Important Vital Signs FindingsWeight14 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to Week 52 that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Number of participants with treatment-emergent AEs or SAEs (excluding infectious AEs or SAEs and injection site reactions) were reported. AEs include both SAEs and non-SAEs.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: Safety population defined as all participants who had at least one dose of investigational product.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs34 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs4 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs36 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs2 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs7 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs38 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)SAEs8 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)AEs40 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study drug without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study drug and up to Week 52 that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. Number of participants with treatment-emergent infectious AEs or SAEs were reported. AEs include both SAEs and non-SAEs.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 52

Population: Safety population defined as all participants who had at least one dose of investigational product.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious AEs25 Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious SAEs2 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious SAEs3 Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious AEs28 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious AEs25 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious SAEs4 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious AEs26 Participants
PlaceboNumber of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Infectious Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)Infectious SAEs4 Participants
Secondary

Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores at Baseline

Participants assessed their disease activity using a 100 millimeter (mm) VAS. Participants answered the following question Considering all the ways your disease affects you, how are you feeling today? Response was recorded by placing a mark on the scale between 0 (very well) and 100 (extremely bad).

Time frame: Baseline

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Patient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores at Baseline50.44 mmStandard Error 2.865
PF-04236921 50 mgPatient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores at Baseline47.70 mmStandard Error 2.88
PlaceboPatient Global Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Scores at Baseline49.47 mmStandard Error 3.349
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24

BICLA include: BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K, PhGA of disease activity. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet the definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: BILAG-2004 improvement (all A scores at baseline improved to B/C/D and all B scores improved to C or D); no worsening in disease activity (no new BILAG-2004 A scores or =\<1 new B score); no worsening of total SLEDAI-2K score; no significant deterioration (\<10 percent \[%\] worsening) in analogue PhGA. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids,immunosuppressants/antimalarial, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. BILAG:assesses disease extent, severity (range: A\[severe\] to E\[no disease\]). SLEDAI-2K:assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status(range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).

Time frame: Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2449.7 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1233.6 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2043.7 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 426.2 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1645.5 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 826.2 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1639.2 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2031.6 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2440.5 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 829 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1239.6 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 421.7 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2425.1 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 830.6 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1233.3 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1626.2 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2021.7 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) Response at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 421 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.53, 3.35]
Comparison: Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.41, 2.65]
Comparison: Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.33, 1.96]
Comparison: Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.39, 2.23]
Comparison: Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.42, 2.45]
Comparison: Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.55, 3.1]
Comparison: Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.95, 5.88]
Comparison: Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.74, 4.46]
Comparison: Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [1.1, 7.12]
Comparison: Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.66, 4.21]
Comparison: Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [1.18, 7.41]
Comparison: Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.82, 5.06]
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24

SRI components include: modified SLEDAI-2K (SLEDAI-2K without standard parameters Low complement and Leukopenia), BILAG 2004, PhGA. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: \>=4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening (\<0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. Modified SLEDAI-2K: assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 102; higher score = higher severity). BILAG: assesses disease extent, severity (range: A \[severe\] to E \[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status (range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).

Time frame: Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 823.8 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1235.6 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2461.2 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2056.5 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1650.2 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 49.5 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1634 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2046.9 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2441.4 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 825.7 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1224.9 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 47 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1242.6 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2441.6 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 49.2 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 830.2 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 1641 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Modified Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24Week 2042.2 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.28, 3.88]
Comparison: Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.19, 3.01]
Comparison: Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.28, 1.85]
Comparison: Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.32, 2.02]
Comparison: Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.3, 1.83]
Comparison: Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.18, 1.13]
Comparison: Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.58, 3.6]
Comparison: Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.3, 1.84]
Comparison: Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.72, 4.37]
Comparison: Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.5, 2.92]
Comparison: Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.89, 5.55]
Comparison: Week 24: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.4, 2.46]
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24

SRI components include: SLEDAI-2K, BILAG 2004 and PhGA. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: \>=4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening(\<0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids, immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. SLEDAI-2K: assesses improvement in disease activity(range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). BILAG: assesses disease extent, severity (range: A\[severe\] to E \[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status (range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]). Model percent estimates reported only for 'Reduction in SLEDAI Score','No Worsening in PhGA' categories; for remaining categories, raw percentages reported

Time frame: Week 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of participants analyzed= participants who completed through the Week 24 visit. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 244 or More Points Reduction in SLEDAI Score60.7 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24No New 1A/2B BILAG100.0 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24No Worsening in PhGA97.4 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24Treatment Failure0 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24Treatment Failure2.8 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 244 or More Points Reduction in SLEDAI Score44.9 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24No Worsening in PhGA97.5 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24No New 1A/2B BILAG100.0 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24Treatment Failure4.9 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24No New 1A/2B BILAG90.2 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 24No Worsening in PhGA93.1 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Pre-defined Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) Components at Week 244 or More Points Reduction in SLEDAI Score49.3 Percentage of participants
Comparison: \>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.p-value: 0.20590% CI: [0.63, 4.02]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: \>=4 points reduction in SLEDAI score: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.p-value: 0.62590% CI: [0.34, 2.08]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.p-value: 0.19890% CI: [0.38, 20.65]Mixed Models Analysis
Comparison: No worsening in PhGA: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.p-value: 0.19290% CI: [0.39, 21.3]Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20

SRI components include:SLEDAI-2K ,BILAG 2004, PhGA. Participants classified as responder if they did not meet definition of treatment failure and met all the following criteria: \>=4 point reduction in SLEDAI-2K score; no new BILAG A organ domain score or 2 new BILAG B organ domain scores; no worsening (\<0.3 point increase) in PhGA score. Treatment failure: any new/increased use of corticosteroids,immunosuppressants/antimalarial drug, any death, hospitalization/treatment discontinuation due to SLE, any flare of lupus interfering with participation in study. SLEDAI-2K: assesses improvement in disease activity (range: 0 to 105; higher score = higher severity). BILAG:assesses disease extent, severity (range: A \[severe\] to E \[no disease\]). PhGA: assesses worsening in participant's general health status(range: 0\[none\] to 3\[severe\]).

Time frame: Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 1648.9 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 826.8 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 1233.7 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 412.2 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 2054.7 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 821.5 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 2036.8 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 47.1 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 1220 Percentage of participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 1628.9 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 2038.3 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 1236.3 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 44.8 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 826.3 Percentage of participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants Achieving Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) Responder Index (SRI) at Week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20Week 1637.1 Percentage of participants
Comparison: Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.62, 12.4]
Comparison: Week 4: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.31, 7.71]
Comparison: Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.4, 2.67]
Comparison: Week 8: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.29, 2.05]
Comparison: Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.35, 2.24]
Comparison: Week 12: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.16, 1.16]
Comparison: Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.64, 4.09]
Comparison: Week 16: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.27, 1.77]
Comparison: Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.78, 4.84]
Comparison: Week 20: Point estimates of the ORs as well as their confidence intervals were calculated from the generalized linear mix model that included fixed factors of the stratification factors, treatment, visit and treatment by visit.90% CI: [0.38, 2.32]
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)

Participants were given supplemental corticosteroids at baseline to control disease activity, if necessary. The steroid taper was based on participant's symptoms. Participants recorded their steroid usage on a diary card. Least Observation Carried Forward (LOCF) method was used to impute missing data.

Time frame: Week 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of participants analyzed= participants evaluable for this outcome measure at specified timepoints. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 1213.3 Percentage of Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 1620.0 Percentage of Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 2026.7 Percentage of Participants
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Percentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 2426.7 Percentage of Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 2420.8 Percentage of Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 1220.8 Percentage of Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 2025.0 Percentage of Participants
PF-04236921 50 mgPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 1625.0 Percentage of Participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 248.7 Percentage of Participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 168.7 Percentage of Participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 208.7 Percentage of Participants
PlaceboPercentage of Participants With Corticosteroid Dose Reduced by Both Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 25 Percent (%) From Baseline and Less Than or Equal to (<=) 7.5 Milligrams Per Day (mg/Day)Week 128.7 Percentage of Participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Normalized Serological Activity

Serologic activity was to be assessed in the subgroup of participants who had positive serologic activity at baseline.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 24

Population: Consistent with the protocol which pre-specified that if the number of participants with abnormal serological activity at baseline were \<25% of overall population, data for this outcome measure was not available.

Secondary

Serum Concentration of PF-04236921

Serum PF-04236921 concentrations over time were summarized.

Time frame: Day 1, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24

Population: Pharmacokinetic analysis set was the subset of participants from safety analysis set (all participants who received at least 1 dose of investigational product) who provided at least 1 pharmacokinetic concentration. Here, number analyzed signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time points.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 6608.4 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 330.1
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 24871.9 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 450.4
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 121210 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 607
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 8463.4 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 254.9
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Day 126.3 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 110.8
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 201452 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 726.8
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 4991.8 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 527.6
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 21297 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 759.4
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Serum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 16703.2 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 407.4
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 82709 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 1317.5
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Day 131.0 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 146.9
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 25640 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 2274
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 44337 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 1495
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 63396 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 1410
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 126482 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 2487.4
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 163886 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 1322.1
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 206978 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 2954
PF-04236921 50 mgSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 244417 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 2402.4
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 417550 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 5757.1
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Day 115.2 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 99.8
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 1616990 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 6203.4
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 222780 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 9896
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 2420150 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 12091
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 811110 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 5023.7
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 613460 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 5416.6
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 2031050 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 11368
PlaceboSerum Concentration of PF-04236921Week 1225240 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 8114
Secondary

Thirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at Baseline

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. These 8 aspects can also be summarized as PCS and mental component score MCS. The score for each aspect and PCS/MCS is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning). LOCF method was used to impute missing values.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: Full Analysis Set= all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Number of participants analyzed= participants evaluable for this outcome measure at specified timepoint. As per sponsor's decision, dosing in PF-04236921 200 mg arm was prematurely terminated and hence it was not included in efficacy analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Thirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at BaselineMCS39.50 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.81
PF-04236921 10 Milligram (10 mg)Thirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at BaselinePCS33.47 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.169
PF-04236921 50 mgThirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at BaselineMCS42.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.426
PF-04236921 50 mgThirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at BaselinePCS34.36 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.25
PlaceboThirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at BaselineMCS39.94 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.45
PlaceboThirty Six-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) at BaselinePCS34.64 Units on a scaleStandard Error 1.523

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 8, 2026