Skip to content

Open-label Phase 3 Study With Mirabegron in Children From 3 to Less Than 18 Years of Age With Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity

An Open-label, Baseline-controlled, Multicenter, Phase 3 Dose-titration Study Followed by a Fixed-dose Observation Period to Evaluate Efficacy, Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Mirabegron in Children and Adolescents From 3 to Less Than 18 Years of Age With Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity (NDO) on Clean Intermittent Catheterization (CIC)

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02751931
Acronym
Crocodile
Enrollment
91
Registered
2016-04-26
Start date
2016-06-17
Completion date
2019-05-06
Last updated
2024-11-12

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

Conditions

Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity

Keywords

Pediatrics, Urodynamics, Mirabegron, Phase 3, Neurogenic Detrusor Overactivity

Brief summary

The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of mirabegron after multiple-dose administration in the pediatric population.

Detailed description

This was a phase 3, open-label, baseline-controlled, multicenter study. The study consisted of 3 periods: Pretreatment period: for a maximum of 28 days before baseline, including screening, washout (if applicable) and baseline. Efficacy treatment period: beginning the day after baseline and continuing to week 24. Long-term safety period: beginning after week 24 and continuing to week 52 (end of study \[EOS\]), or to the end of treatment (EOT).

Interventions

DRUGMirabegron

Participants received initial dose of 25 mg of mirabegron PED25 orally once daily. At weeks 2, 4 or 8, participants were up-titrated to PED50 based on the given dose titration criteria. Following week 24, participants stayed on their individual dose level until week 52 EOS or EOT. Participants with a body weight \>=35 kg received mirabegron tablets or body weight \<35 kg received mirabegron oral suspension. At week 24, participants on mirabegron oral suspension could switch to tablets if the body weight became \>=35 kg or participants on mirabegron tablets could switch to oral suspension if the body weight became \<35 Kg or participants could switch to either of the dosage form for acceptability reasons after sponsor's prior approval and on a case-by-case basis. Mirabegron extended-release granules were reconstituted with water to prepare a mirabegron oral suspension of 8 mg/mL. Administration was via an oral syringe with a sip of water afterwards.

Sponsors

Astellas Pharma Europe B.V.
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
3 Years to 17 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Subject has a body weight of greater than or equal to 11 kg. * Subject suffers from NDO confirmed by urodynamic investigation at baseline. The diagnosis of NDO must be confirmed by the presence of at least 1 involuntary detrusor contraction \> 15 cm H2O from baseline detrusor pressure, and/or a decrease in compliance leading to an increase in baseline detrusor pressure of \> 20 cm H2O. * Subject has been using CIC for at least 4 weeks prior to visit 1/screening. * Subject has a current indication for drug therapy to manage NDO. * Subject is able to take the study drug in accordance with the protocol

Exclusion criteria

* Subject has a known genitourinary condition (other than NDO) that may cause overactive contractions or incontinence or kidney/bladder stones or another persistent urinary tract pathology that may cause symptoms. * Subject has one of the following gastrointestinal problems: partial or complete obstruction, decreased motility such as paralytic ileus, subjects at risk of gastric retention. * Subject has a urinary indwelling catheter within 4 weeks prior to visit 1/screening. * Subject has a surgically treated underactive urethral sphincter * Subject has vesico-ureteral reflux grade 3 to 5. * Subject has undergone bladder augmentation surgery. * Subject receives electrostimulation therapy, if started within 30 days before visit 1/screening or is expected to start during the study period. Subjects who are on an established regimen may remain on this for the duration of the study. * Subject suffers from a symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) at baseline (symptomatic is defined as pain, fever, hematuria, new onset foul-smelling urine). If present at visit 1/screening or diagnosed between visit 1/screening and visit 3/baseline, the UTI should be treated successfully (clinical recovery) prior to baseline. If a symptomatic UTI is present at baseline, all baseline assessments are allowed to be postponed for a maximum of 7 days until the UTI is successfully treated (clinical recovery). * Subject has a (mean) resting pulse rate \> 99th percentile \[Fleming et al, 2011\]. * Subject has an established hypertension and a systolic or diastolic blood pressure greater than the 99th percentile of the normal range determined by sex, age and height, plus 5mmHg \[NIH 2005\]. * Subject has a risk of QT prolongation (e.g., hypokalemia, long QT syndrome \[LQTS\]; or family history of LQTS, exercise-induced syncope). * Subject has severe renal impairment (eGFR according to Larsson equation \< 30 mL/min). * Subject's aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) is greater than or equal to 2 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) or total bilirubin (TBL) greater than or equal to 1.5 times the ULN according to age and sex. * Subject has a history or presence of any malignancy prior to visit 1/screening. * Subject has known or suspected hypersensitivity to mirabegron, any of the excipients used in the current formulations or previous severe hypersensitivity to any drug. * Subject has participated in another clinical trial (and/or has taken an investigational drug within 30 days (or 5 half-lives of the drug, or the limit set by national law, whichever is longer) prior to visit 1/screening. * Subject uses any of the following prohibited medications (after start of washout): * Any medication, other than the study drug used, for the management of NDO; * Any drugs that are sensitive CYP2D6 substrates with a narrow therapeutic index or sensitive P-glycoprotein (P-gp) substrates * Any strong CYP3A4 inhibitors if the subject has a mild to moderate renal impairment (eGFR 30 - 89 mL/min). * Subject has been administered intravesical botulinum toxin; except if given \> 4 months prior to visit 1/screening and the subject experiences symptoms comparable to those existing prior to the botulinum toxin injections.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity (MCC) at Week 24Baseline and week 24Change from baseline in MCC was based on filling urodynamics (volume at the end of filling). During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. Missing MCC observations at week 24 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity at Week 4Baseline and week 4Change from baseline in MCC was based on filling urodynamics (volume at the end of filling). During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.
Change From Baseline in Number of Overactive Detrusor Contractions (> 15 cm H20) Until End of FillingBaseline and weeks 4 and 24Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.
Change From Baseline in Detrusor Pressure at End of FillingBaseline and weeks 4 and 24Detrusor pressure was defined as bladder pressure minus intra-abdominal pressure as assessed by urodynamics. Filling was stopped (end of filling) when the detrusor pressure exceeded 100 cm H2O or was considered dangerously high by the investigator or urodynamicist (for instance, a prolonged passive detrusor pressure \> 40 cm H2O). During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.
Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20)Baseline and weeks 4 and 24Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. If no detrusor contraction of \> 15 cm H2O occurred, the bladder volume was imputed with maximum cystometric capacity.
Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test Updated AnalysisBaseline and weeks 4 and 24Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. If no detrusor contraction of \> 15 cm H2O occurred, the bladder volume was imputed with maximum cystometric capacity. This updated analysis is presented as the original analysis of bladder volume until first detrusor contraction (\> 15 cm H2O) did not impute missing bladder volume data with the maximum cystometric capacity (MCC) value at that visit according to the statistical analysis plan (SAP). This analysis was updated to impute missing values for volume at first contraction with respective MCC values.
Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Paired T-testBaseline and weeks 4 and 24Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. If no detrusor contraction of \> 15 cm H2O occurred, the bladder volume was imputed with maximum cystometric capacity.
Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationBaseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52For each participant, the average catheterized volume per catheterization was calculated as the sum of all available/non-missing catheterized volumes recorded over 2 measuring days in the weekend diary, whether or not the 2 days were consecutive divided by the number of catheterizations with non-missing volumes. If volumes were recorded on 1 single day of the weekend diary, the average catheterized volume per catheterization was calculated using all available/non-missing catheterized volumes recorded that day. If no volumes were recorded on any day of the weekend diary, the average catheterized volume per catheterization was missing. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which ≥1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.
Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeBaseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52For each participant, the maximum catheterized volume per day was calculated using all available/non-missing catheterized volumes recorded for the 2 measuring days in the weekend e-diary, whether or not these 2 days were consecutive. Maximum value was calculated separately for each measuring day and the mean of the two values was used. If volumes recorded on 1 single day of the weekend e-diary, the maximum catheterized volume per day was calculated using all available/non-zero catheterized volumes recorded that day. If no volumes were recorded on any day of the weekend e-diary, the maximum catheterized volume per day was missing. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which \>=1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.
Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52For each participant, the MCDV was calculated using all available/non-missing catheterized daytime volumes for the 2 measuring days in the weekend e-diary, whether or not the 2 days were consecutive. Maximum value was calculated separately for each measuring day and the mean of the 2 values was used. If volumes were recorded on 1 single day of the weekend e-diary, the MCDV was calculated using all available/non-zero catheterized daytime volumes recorded that day. If no volumes were recorded on any day of the weekend e-diary, the MCDV was missing. Daytime was defined as the time between wake-up time (minus 30 min) & time to sleep (plus 29 min) recorded in the e-diary. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which \>=1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.
Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeBaseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52The first morning catheterized volume was the first recorded non-zero volume within or after the hour of the wake-up time on a volume-measuring day in the e-diary. The average first morning catheterized volume was calculated as the average of the available first morning catheterized volumes recorded for the 2 measuring days in the weekend e-diary, whether or not these 2 days were consecutive. If the first morning catheterized volume was recorded on 1 single day of the weekend e-diary, the average morning catheterized is the first morning catheterized that day. If no first morning catheterized volumes are recorded on any day of the weekend e-diary, the average first morning catheterized volume was missing. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which \>=1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayBaseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52For each participant, the mean number of leakage episodes per day (during day & night time) was calculated using all available/non-missing number of leakage episodes for the 2 measuring days in the weekend diary during day & night time. If the number of leakage episodes was recorded on 1 single day in the 7-day diary during day & night time, the mean number of leakage episodes per day during day & night time is equal to the total number of leakage episodes recorded that day during day & night time. If no leakage episodes were recorded on any day of the weekend diary during day & night time, the mean number of leakage episodes per day was zero. Participants who did not report any leakage episode during the visit were imputed with a '0' for that visit. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which ≥1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.
Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisBaseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52For each participant, the mean number(no.) of leakage episodes per day (during day & night time) was calculated using all available/non-missing no. of leakage episodes for the 2 measuring days in the weekend diary during day & night time. If the no. of leakage episodes was recorded on 1 single day in the 7-day diary during day & night time, the mean no. of leakage episodes per day during day & night time is equal to the total no. of leakage episodes recorded that day during day & night time. If no leakage episodes were recorded on any day of the weekend diary during day & night time, the mean no. of leakage episodes per day was zero. Participants who did not report leakage episode during the visit were imputed with a '0' for that visit. A valid bladder diary day in weekend diary was any e-diary day for which ≥1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time. Updated analysis is presented because one participant entered weight of leakage instead of no. of leakages.
Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52Dry days were defined as leakage-free days, this included day and night time. Participants recorded dry days in the 7-day diary. Dry days were calculated as follows: Ddry was the number of valid diary days where the response to the question 'Did you leak between this catheterization and the last one' was 'No' each time a new catheterization was entered in the e-diary during the day & night time period. Dwet was the number of valid diary days where the response to the question 'Did you leak between this catheterization and the last one' was 'Yes' for at least one catheterization entered during the day and night time period. If (Ddry + Dwet) \> 3, the number of dry days per 7 days was calculated as Ddry/(Ddry + Dwet) x 7, otherwise the value was missing.
Change From Baseline in Pediatric Incontinence Questionnaire (PIN-Q) ScoreBaseline and weeks 24 and 52PIN-Q measured quality of life via an e-diary. Total score ranged from 0 (no effect) to 80 (worst effect); decrease in score indicated improvement. Total score was 20x average of individual PinQ items, the 20 Likert scales were converted to a score: Items 6 & 17; 0: No to 4: Definitely was used; & For the other 18 items; 0: No to 4: All the time was used. Expectation that questionnaires had limited missing values; if answers \>2 questions were missing, total score was not calculated & was missing. Individual item scores were directly imputed. Change from baseline to each post-baseline visit in the total score was post-baseline visit value minus baseline value. If either baseline or post-baseline visit value was missing, change from baseline was missing. If change was: \<0, improvement between 2 time-points; =0, no change between 2 time points; \>0, worsening between 2 time points.
Change From Baseline in Bladder Compliance (ΔV/ΔP)Baseline and weeks 4 and 24Bladder compliance was an indication of the elasticity of the bladder wall and was calculated by dividing the change in volume by the change in detrusor pressure during the filling of the bladder. Change from baseline in bladder compliance (change in volume/change in pressure) was assessed by the independent central reviewers and reported as annotations on the urodynamic trace and in an external database. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.
Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Weeks 24 and 52The Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) is a 7 point scale that required the clinician to assess how much the participant's overall bladder symptoms since the start of the study on day 1 has improved or worsened and rated as: very much improved (1); much improved (2); minimally improved (3); no change (4); minimally worse (5); much worse (6); or very much worse (7). The total score range from 1-7, where lower scores indicated improvement.
Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Week 4Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/tablets by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the swallow of the study medication/tablets by ticking one of the following categories: Really Difficult (0), Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) and Really Easy (4).
Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Week 24Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/tablets by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the swallow of the study medication/tablets by ticking one of the following categories: Really Difficult (0), Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) and Really Easy (4).
Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Week 52Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/tablets by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the swallow of the study medication/tablets by ticking one of the following categories: Really Difficult (0), Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) and Really Easy (4).
Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Week 4Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories:Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the smell of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1),Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the consumption and the preparation of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Difficult (0),Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) & Really Easy (4).
Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Week 24Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories:Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the smell of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1),Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the consumption and the preparation of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Difficult (0),Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) & Really Easy (4).
Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Week 52Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories:Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the smell of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1),Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the consumption and the preparation of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Difficult (0),Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) & Really Easy (4).
Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)From the first dose of study drug administration up to end-of-treatment (EoT) (up to week 52)An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who was given the study drug or who had undergone study procedures and did not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE could therefore be any unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related to the medicinal (investigational) product. A treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was defined as any AE with date of onset occurring on or after the first dose of study medication and up to the end of study.
Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) of MirabegronA total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.Cmax was defined as the maximum plasma concentration of mirabegron.
Time to Reach Maximum Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron Following Drug Administration (Tmax)A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.Tmax was defined as the time to reach maximum plasma concentration following drug administration.
Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Curve From Time Zero to 24 Hours (AUC24) for MirabegronA total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.AUC (0-24) is the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time zero (pre-dose) to 24 hours post-dose.
Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron at the End of a Dosing Interval at Steady State (Ctrough)A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.Ctrough was defined as the measured plasma concentration of mirabegron at the end of a dosing interval at steady state.
Apparent Total Clearance of Mirabegron From Plasma After Oral Administration (CL/F)A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.Clearance of a drug is a measure of the rate at which a drug is metabolized or eliminated by normal biological processes. Clearance obtained after oral dose (apparent oral clearance) is influenced by the fraction of the dose absorbed. Drug clearance is a quantitative measure of the rate at which a drug substance is removed from the blood.
Apparent Volume of Distribution After Non-intravenous Administration (Vz/F) of MirabegronA total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.Volume of distribution is defined as the theoretical volume in which the total amount of drug would need to be uniformly distributed to produce the desired plasma concentration of a drug. Apparent volume of distribution after oral dose (Vz/F) is influenced by the fraction absorbed.
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Impression of Severity Scale (PGI-S)Baseline and weeks 24 and 52The PGI-S was an answer to the question: How did you feel about your bladder condition during the past 3 days? Participants evaluated their recent condition as Really Bad(0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) &Really Good (4). An increase indicated improvement. The total score ranged from 0 to 4, where higher scores indicated improvement.The change from baseline to each postbaseline visit in the PGI-S score is the value at the post-baseline visit minus the value at the baseline visit. If either the baseline or the post-baseline visit value is missing, the change from baseline was missing. A positive change indicated an improvement while a negative change indicated a worsening.

Countries

Australia, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Israel, Jordan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey (Türkiye)

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Pediatric participants consisting of male and female children from 3 to \<12 years of age and adolescents from 12 to \<18 years of age, with a body weight of \>=11 kilogram (kg), with Neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) on clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) were enrolled in this study.

Pre-assignment details

Eligible participants who met inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria were enrolled. Participants who received oral drug to manage their NDO completed a 2 week washout period. A total of 113 pediatric participants were screened, 22 of whom were screening failures.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Children (3 to < 12 Years)
Participants aged 3 to \< 12 years received initial dose of 25 mg of mirabegron orally once daily based on weight \[PED25\] on day 1. At weeks 2, 4 or 8, participant's were up-titrated to the pediatric equivalent dose of 50 mg in adults \[PED50\] based on the given dose titration criteria. Following week 24, participants stayed on their individual dose level until week 52 EOS or EOT.
56
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)
Participants aged 12 to \< 18 years received initial dose of 25 mg of mirabegron orally once daily based on weight \[PED25\] on day 1. At weeks 2, 4 or 8, participant's were up-titrated to the pediatric equivalent dose of 50 mg in adults \[PED50\] based on the given dose titration criteria. Following week 24, participants stayed on their individual dose level until week 52 EOS or EOT.
35
Total91

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event30
Overall StudyOther: Miscelleneous108

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicChildren (3 to < 12 Years)Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Total
Age, Continuous7.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.5
13.9 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.6
10.2 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.7
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants2 Participants3 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
55 Participants33 Participants88 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Maximum Cystometric Capacity158.64 milliliter (mL)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 94.5
238.92 milliliter (mL)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 99.14
188.16 milliliter (mL)
STANDARD_DEVIATION 103.15
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
13 Participants8 Participants21 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
2 Participants1 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
41 Participants25 Participants66 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
33 Participants15 Participants48 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
23 Participants20 Participants43 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 550 / 31
other
Total, other adverse events
17 / 559 / 31
serious
Total, serious adverse events
9 / 555 / 31

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity (MCC) at Week 24

Change from baseline in MCC was based on filling urodynamics (volume at the end of filling). During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. Missing MCC observations at week 24 were imputed using last observation carried forward (LOCF).

Time frame: Baseline and week 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the full analysis set (FAS) which included all participants who took ≥ 1 dose of study drug and provided both valid (as by the central reviewer's assessment) nonmissing MCC measurements at baseline and at a postbaseline visit for the primary efficacy endpoint.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity (MCC) at Week 2472.09 mLStandard Deviation 87.09
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity (MCC) at Week 24113.21 mLStandard Deviation 82.99
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [45.28, 98.89]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [78.95, 147.47]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Apparent Total Clearance of Mirabegron From Plasma After Oral Administration (CL/F)

Clearance of a drug is a measure of the rate at which a drug is metabolized or eliminated by normal biological processes. Clearance obtained after oral dose (apparent oral clearance) is influenced by the fraction of the dose absorbed. Drug clearance is a quantitative measure of the rate at which a drug substance is removed from the blood.

Time frame: A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.

Population: The analysis population consisted of the PKAS.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Apparent Total Clearance of Mirabegron From Plasma After Oral Administration (CL/F)192.5 Liter/hour (L/hr)
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Apparent Total Clearance of Mirabegron From Plasma After Oral Administration (CL/F)202.3 Liter/hour (L/hr)Standard Deviation 83.05
Children PED50 (PKAS)Apparent Total Clearance of Mirabegron From Plasma After Oral Administration (CL/F)230.9 Liter/hour (L/hr)Standard Deviation 162
Adolescents PED50 (PKAS)Apparent Total Clearance of Mirabegron From Plasma After Oral Administration (CL/F)279.6 Liter/hour (L/hr)Standard Deviation 294.2
Secondary

Apparent Volume of Distribution After Non-intravenous Administration (Vz/F) of Mirabegron

Volume of distribution is defined as the theoretical volume in which the total amount of drug would need to be uniformly distributed to produce the desired plasma concentration of a drug. Apparent volume of distribution after oral dose (Vz/F) is influenced by the fraction absorbed.

Time frame: A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.

Population: The analysis population consisted of the PKAS.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Apparent Volume of Distribution After Non-intravenous Administration (Vz/F) of Mirabegron14450 Liter
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Apparent Volume of Distribution After Non-intravenous Administration (Vz/F) of Mirabegron15380 LiterStandard Deviation 6524
Children PED50 (PKAS)Apparent Volume of Distribution After Non-intravenous Administration (Vz/F) of Mirabegron12150 LiterStandard Deviation 5630
Adolescents PED50 (PKAS)Apparent Volume of Distribution After Non-intravenous Administration (Vz/F) of Mirabegron14770 LiterStandard Deviation 6792
Secondary

Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Curve From Time Zero to 24 Hours (AUC24) for Mirabegron

AUC (0-24) is the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time zero (pre-dose) to 24 hours post-dose.

Time frame: A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.

Population: The analysis population consisted of the PKAS.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Curve From Time Zero to 24 Hours (AUC24) for Mirabegron166.3 nanogram*hour/milliliter
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Curve From Time Zero to 24 Hours (AUC24) for Mirabegron137.8 nanogram*hour/milliliterStandard Deviation 53.07
Children PED50 (PKAS)Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Curve From Time Zero to 24 Hours (AUC24) for Mirabegron310.1 nanogram*hour/milliliterStandard Deviation 163.1
Adolescents PED50 (PKAS)Area Under the Plasma Concentration-Time Curve From Time Zero to 24 Hours (AUC24) for Mirabegron291.6 nanogram*hour/milliliterStandard Deviation 171.8
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per Catheterization

For each participant, the average catheterized volume per catheterization was calculated as the sum of all available/non-missing catheterized volumes recorded over 2 measuring days in the weekend diary, whether or not the 2 days were consecutive divided by the number of catheterizations with non-missing volumes. If volumes were recorded on 1 single day of the weekend diary, the average catheterized volume per catheterization was calculated using all available/non-missing catheterized volumes recorded that day. If no volumes were recorded on any day of the weekend diary, the average catheterized volume per catheterization was missing. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which ≥1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 836.90 mLStandard Deviation 46.05
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 2441.63 mLStandard Deviation 58.03
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 430.08 mLStandard Deviation 49.5
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 3653.87 mLStandard Deviation 91.74
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 1232.25 mLStandard Deviation 45.51
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 5242.84 mLStandard Deviation 65.31
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 214.58 mLStandard Deviation 43.98
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 5242.40 mLStandard Deviation 69.25
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 235.99 mLStandard Deviation 54.19
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 451.96 mLStandard Deviation 64.71
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 845.10 mLStandard Deviation 53.77
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 1243.94 mLStandard Deviation 58.49
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 2459.31 mLStandard Deviation 82.22
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Catheterized Volume Per CatheterizationChange at Week 3652.14 mLStandard Deviation 74.9
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Childrenp-value: 0.03595% CI: [1, 28.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00395% CI: [13.1, 58.9]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [14.7, 45.5]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [24.6, 79.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [22.7, 51.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [21.3, 68.9]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [18.2, 46.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00195% CI: [19.2, 68.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [23.3, 60]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00295% CI: [23.8, 94.9]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [24.5, 83.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00295% CI: [20.5, 83.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [22, 63.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00895% CI: [12.5, 72.3]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized Volume

The first morning catheterized volume was the first recorded non-zero volume within or after the hour of the wake-up time on a volume-measuring day in the e-diary. The average first morning catheterized volume was calculated as the average of the available first morning catheterized volumes recorded for the 2 measuring days in the weekend e-diary, whether or not these 2 days were consecutive. If the first morning catheterized volume was recorded on 1 single day of the weekend e-diary, the average morning catheterized is the first morning catheterized that day. If no first morning catheterized volumes are recorded on any day of the weekend e-diary, the average first morning catheterized volume was missing. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which \>=1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 834.01 mLStandard Deviation 89.53
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 2440.76 mLStandard Deviation 116.41
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 419.81 mLStandard Deviation 89.04
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 3631.08 mLStandard Deviation 145.63
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 128.68 mLStandard Deviation 80.16
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 5231.83 mLStandard Deviation 94.25
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 27.98 mLStandard Deviation 101.36
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 5238.14 mLStandard Deviation 108.06
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 239.52 mLStandard Deviation 80.24
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 475.25 mLStandard Deviation 105.72
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 844.43 mLStandard Deviation 89.01
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 1238.23 mLStandard Deviation 66.8
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 2486.66 mLStandard Deviation 96.55
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Average Morning Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 3668.47 mLStandard Deviation 122.43
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Childrenp-value: 0.61795% CI: [-24, 40]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.03595% CI: [3, 76]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: 0.16795% CI: [-8.7, 48.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00595% CI: [25.8, 124.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Childrenp-value: 0.0295% CI: [5.7, 62.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.03395% CI: [3.9, 84.9]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Childrenp-value: 0.50395% CI: [-17.3, 34.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.01695% CI: [7.8, 68.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.04395% CI: [1.4, 80.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [41.5, 131.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Childrenp-value: 0.20395% CI: [-17.5, 79.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.01995% CI: [12.7, 124.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.04295% CI: [1.3, 62.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.12195% CI: [-11, 87.3]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Bladder Compliance (ΔV/ΔP)

Bladder compliance was an indication of the elasticity of the bladder wall and was calculated by dividing the change in volume by the change in detrusor pressure during the filling of the bladder. Change from baseline in bladder compliance (change in volume/change in pressure) was assessed by the independent central reviewers and reported as annotations on the urodynamic trace and in an external database. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 4 and 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Bladder Compliance (ΔV/ΔP)Change at Week 4-4.09 mL/cm H2OStandard Deviation 50.78
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Bladder Compliance (ΔV/ΔP)Change at Week 2414.62 mL/cm H2OStandard Deviation 42.09
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Bladder Compliance (ΔV/ΔP)Change at Week 415.16 mL/cm H2OStandard Deviation 22.69
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Bladder Compliance (ΔV/ΔP)Change at Week 2413.59 mL/cm H2OStandard Deviation 15.02
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: 0.61895% CI: [-20.55, 12.38]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00595% CI: [5.1, 25.22]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.05595% CI: [-0.31, 29.54]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [6.75, 20.42]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Detrusor Pressure at End of Filling

Detrusor pressure was defined as bladder pressure minus intra-abdominal pressure as assessed by urodynamics. Filling was stopped (end of filling) when the detrusor pressure exceeded 100 cm H2O or was considered dangerously high by the investigator or urodynamicist (for instance, a prolonged passive detrusor pressure \> 40 cm H2O). During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 4 and 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Detrusor Pressure at End of FillingChange at Week 4-12.38 cm H2OStandard Deviation 19.56
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Detrusor Pressure at End of FillingChange at Week 24-18.11 cm H2OStandard Deviation 19.97
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Detrusor Pressure at End of FillingChange at Week 4-6.48 cm H2OStandard Deviation 30.7
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Detrusor Pressure at End of FillingChange at Week 24-13.19 cm H2OStandard Deviation 19.91
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [-18.56, -6.21]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.33495% CI: [-20.09, 7.13]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [-24.87, -11.35]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00595% CI: [-22.02, -4.36]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20)

Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. If no detrusor contraction of \> 15 cm H2O occurred, the bladder volume was imputed with maximum cystometric capacity.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 4 and 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20)Change at Week 454.00 mL
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20)Change at Week 2468.00 mL
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20)Change at Week 441.15 mL
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20)Change at Week 2462.00 mL
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: <0.001Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.148Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.002Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.039Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Paired T-test

Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. If no detrusor contraction of \> 15 cm H2O occurred, the bladder volume was imputed with maximum cystometric capacity.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 4 and 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Paired T-testChange at Week 456.09 mLStandard Deviation 96.23
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Paired T-testChange at Week 2493.09 mLStandard Deviation 88.14
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Paired T-testChange at Week 473.80 mLStandard Deviation 117.21
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Paired T-testChange at Week 24121.33 mLStandard Deviation 159.84
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.006t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.001t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test Updated Analysis

Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers. If no detrusor contraction of \> 15 cm H2O occurred, the bladder volume was imputed with maximum cystometric capacity. This updated analysis is presented as the original analysis of bladder volume until first detrusor contraction (\> 15 cm H2O) did not impute missing bladder volume data with the maximum cystometric capacity (MCC) value at that visit according to the statistical analysis plan (SAP). This analysis was updated to impute missing values for volume at first contraction with respective MCC values.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 4 and 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEDIAN)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test Updated AnalysisChange at Week 448.00 mL
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test Updated AnalysisChange at Week 2476.00 mL
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test Updated AnalysisChange at Week 446.30 mL
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Filling Bladder Volume Until First Overactive Detrusor Contraction (> 15 cm H20): Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test Updated AnalysisChange at Week 2478.45 mL
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: <0.001Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.007Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: <0.001Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.001Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)

For each participant, the MCDV was calculated using all available/non-missing catheterized daytime volumes for the 2 measuring days in the weekend e-diary, whether or not the 2 days were consecutive. Maximum value was calculated separately for each measuring day and the mean of the 2 values was used. If volumes were recorded on 1 single day of the weekend e-diary, the MCDV was calculated using all available/non-zero catheterized daytime volumes recorded that day. If no volumes were recorded on any day of the weekend e-diary, the MCDV was missing. Daytime was defined as the time between wake-up time (minus 30 min) & time to sleep (plus 29 min) recorded in the e-diary. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which \>=1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 843.91 mLStandard Deviation 74.44
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 2444.20 mLStandard Deviation 98.31
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 437.71 mLStandard Deviation 83.33
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 3658.49 mLStandard Deviation 121.12
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 1229.05 mLStandard Deviation 67.86
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 5253.76 mLStandard Deviation 100.24
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 218.13 mLStandard Deviation 73.38
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 5249.13 mLStandard Deviation 117.23
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 235.58 mLStandard Deviation 86.78
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 470.35 mLStandard Deviation 113.98
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 838.11 mLStandard Deviation 90.88
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 1243.04 mLStandard Deviation 73.82
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 2481.37 mLStandard Deviation 117.77
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Daytime Volume (MCDV)Change at Week 3650.90 mLStandard Deviation 114.05
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Childrenp-value: 0.11395% CI: [-4.5, 40.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.05695% CI: [-1.1, 72.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: 0.00595% CI: [11.7, 63.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00695% CI: [22.2, 118.5]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [21, 66.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.06395% CI: [-2.2, 78.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Childrenp-value: 0.00895% CI: [8.2, 49.9]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00995% CI: [11.9, 74.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.00695% CI: [13.2, 75.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00395% CI: [30.4, 132.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Childrenp-value: 0.00495% CI: [19.8, 97.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.03995% CI: [2.7, 99.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.00295% CI: [21.7, 85.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.05795% CI: [-1.6, 99.8]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized Volume

For each participant, the maximum catheterized volume per day was calculated using all available/non-missing catheterized volumes recorded for the 2 measuring days in the weekend e-diary, whether or not these 2 days were consecutive. Maximum value was calculated separately for each measuring day and the mean of the two values was used. If volumes recorded on 1 single day of the weekend e-diary, the maximum catheterized volume per day was calculated using all available/non-zero catheterized volumes recorded that day. If no volumes were recorded on any day of the weekend e-diary, the maximum catheterized volume per day was missing. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which \>=1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 845.27 mLStandard Deviation 75.22
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 2449.88 mLStandard Deviation 103.7
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 446.69 mLStandard Deviation 80.29
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 3660.09 mLStandard Deviation 121.66
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 1233.23 mLStandard Deviation 68.31
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 5253.51 mLStandard Deviation 96.72
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 217.50 mLStandard Deviation 73.58
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 5254.30 mLStandard Deviation 104.74
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 242.38 mLStandard Deviation 78.23
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 473.25 mLStandard Deviation 103.98
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 842.86 mLStandard Deviation 79.97
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 1247.29 mLStandard Deviation 69.83
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 2484.39 mLStandard Deviation 121.98
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Catheterized VolumeChange at Week 3654.78 mLStandard Deviation 104.54
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Childrenp-value: 0.12695% CI: [-5.1, 40.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.01495% CI: [9.3, 75.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [21.7, 71.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00295% CI: [29.3, 117.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [22.1, 68.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.0295% CI: [7.4, 78.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Childrenp-value: 0.00395% CI: [12.2, 54.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00395% CI: [17.8, 76.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.00495% CI: [17.1, 82.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00395% CI: [31.6, 137.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Childrenp-value: 0.00395% CI: [21.2, 99]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.01795% CI: [10.6, 98.9]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.00195% CI: [22.6, 84.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.02195% CI: [9, 99.6]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity at Week 4

Change from baseline in MCC was based on filling urodynamics (volume at the end of filling). During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.

Time frame: Baseline and week 4

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies those who where evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity at Week 441.36 mLStandard Deviation 71.64
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Maximum Cystometric Capacity at Week 480.78 mLStandard Deviation 96.15
Comparison: Change from Baseline at week 4 - Children.p-value: <0.00195% CI: [18.75, 63.97]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [39.2, 122.36]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day

For each participant, the mean number of leakage episodes per day (during day & night time) was calculated using all available/non-missing number of leakage episodes for the 2 measuring days in the weekend diary during day & night time. If the number of leakage episodes was recorded on 1 single day in the 7-day diary during day & night time, the mean number of leakage episodes per day during day & night time is equal to the total number of leakage episodes recorded that day during day & night time. If no leakage episodes were recorded on any day of the weekend diary during day & night time, the mean number of leakage episodes per day was zero. Participants who did not report any leakage episode during the visit were imputed with a '0' for that visit. A valid bladder diary day in the weekend diary was any e-diary day for which ≥1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 81.16 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 16.11
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 240.18 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 10.05
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 4-1.14 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 3.39
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 36-1.98 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 4.33
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 120.37 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 13.03
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 52-0.94 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 2.96
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 20.35 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 9.35
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 52-1.12 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.97
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 2-0.53 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.3
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 4-0.87 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.68
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 8-0.65 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.78
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 12-0.65 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.55
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 24-0.75 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.28
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per DayChange at Week 36-0.81 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.47
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Childrenp-value: 0.81895% CI: [-2.7, 3.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.11495% CI: [-1.2, 0.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: 0.05295% CI: [-2.3, 0]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.06695% CI: [-1.8, 0.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Childrenp-value: 0.67495% CI: [-4.4, 6.7]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.27895% CI: [-1.9, 0.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Childrenp-value: 0.87195% CI: [-4.2, 5]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.15395% CI: [-1.6, 0.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.92295% CI: [-3.5, 3.9]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.04795% CI: [-1.5, 0]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Childrenp-value: 0.01895% CI: [-3.6, -0.4]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.0795% CI: [-1.7, 0.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.08395% CI: [-2, 0.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.06495% CI: [-2.3, 0.1]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated Analysis

For each participant, the mean number(no.) of leakage episodes per day (during day & night time) was calculated using all available/non-missing no. of leakage episodes for the 2 measuring days in the weekend diary during day & night time. If the no. of leakage episodes was recorded on 1 single day in the 7-day diary during day & night time, the mean no. of leakage episodes per day during day & night time is equal to the total no. of leakage episodes recorded that day during day & night time. If no leakage episodes were recorded on any day of the weekend diary during day & night time, the mean no. of leakage episodes per day was zero. Participants who did not report leakage episode during the visit were imputed with a '0' for that visit. A valid bladder diary day in weekend diary was any e-diary day for which ≥1 catheterized volume \>0 mL was recorded with complete date and time. Updated analysis is presented because one participant entered weight of leakage instead of no. of leakages.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 81.68 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 17.7
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 24-2.34 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 3.66
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 4-1.32 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 3.63
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 36-4.10 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 9.92
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 120.49 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 14.23
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 52-1.99 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 3.49
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 20.78 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 10.63
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 52-1.05 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.61
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 2-0.71 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.27
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 4-0.95 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.48
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 8-0.84 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.4
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 12-0.86 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.22
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 24-0.98 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.08
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Mean Number of Leakage Episodes Per Day: Updated AnalysisChange at Week 36-0.98 leakage episodes per dayStandard Deviation 1.25
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Childrenp-value: 0.692t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.018t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: 0.061t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.008t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Childrenp-value: 0.612t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.018t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Childrenp-value: 0.858t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.004t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.003t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.001t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Childrenp-value: 0.045t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.002t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.006t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.007t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)

Dry days were defined as leakage-free days, this included day and night time. Participants recorded dry days in the 7-day diary. Dry days were calculated as follows: Ddry was the number of valid diary days where the response to the question 'Did you leak between this catheterization and the last one' was 'No' each time a new catheterization was entered in the e-diary during the day & night time period. Dwet was the number of valid diary days where the response to the question 'Did you leak between this catheterization and the last one' was 'Yes' for at least one catheterization entered during the day and night time period. If (Ddry + Dwet) \> 3, the number of dry days per 7 days was calculated as Ddry/(Ddry + Dwet) x 7, otherwise the value was missing.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 81.14 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.15
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 241.34 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.18
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 40.68 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 1.69
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 361.33 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.43
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 121.31 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.5
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 521.38 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.65
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 20.34 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 0.91
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 522.14 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.51
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 20.82 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 1.9
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 41.36 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 1.91
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 82.26 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.48
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 121.93 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.46
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 242.17 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.38
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Dry Days Per 7 Days (Day and Night Time)Change at Week 361.88 dry days per 7 daysStandard Deviation 2.13
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [1.1, 3.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Childrenp-value: 0.01895% CI: [0.1, 0.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 2 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.04595% CI: [0, 1.6]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: 0.01395% CI: [0.1, 1.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00295% CI: [0.6, 2.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Childrenp-value: 0.00195% CI: [0.5, 1.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 8 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [1.2, 3.3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Childrenp-value: 0.00195% CI: [0.5, 2.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 12 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [0.9, 3]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: <0.00195% CI: [0.7, 2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [1.2, 3.2]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Childrenp-value: 0.00295% CI: [0.5, 2.1]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 36 - Adolescentsp-value: <0.00195% CI: [1, 2.8]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.00295% CI: [0.5, 2.2]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Number of Overactive Detrusor Contractions (> 15 cm H20) Until End of Filling

Detrusor overactivity is the occurrence of involuntary detrusor contractions during filling cystometry. During urodynamic assessments, the bladder was filled until voiding/leakage began, or until the participant experienced pain or discomfort, or because dangerous high detrusor pressure, or 135% of maximum catheterized volume for age had been reached. A valid urodynamic assessment was confirmed valid by the central reviewers.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 4 and 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Overactive Detrusor Contractions (> 15 cm H20) Until End of FillingChange at Week 40.44 overactive detrusor contractionsStandard Deviation 5.82
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Overactive Detrusor Contractions (> 15 cm H20) Until End of FillingChange at Week 24-1.86 overactive detrusor contractionsStandard Deviation 4.16
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Overactive Detrusor Contractions (> 15 cm H20) Until End of FillingChange at Week 4-0.64 overactive detrusor contractionsStandard Deviation 2.94
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Number of Overactive Detrusor Contractions (> 15 cm H20) Until End of FillingChange at Week 24-0.77 overactive detrusor contractionsStandard Deviation 3.87
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Childrenp-value: 0.63295% CI: [-1.4, 2.28]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 4 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.32195% CI: [-1.94, 0.67]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.01195% CI: [-3.27, -0.45]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.35995% CI: [-2.49, 0.94]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Patient Global Impression of Severity Scale (PGI-S)

The PGI-S was an answer to the question: How did you feel about your bladder condition during the past 3 days? Participants evaluated their recent condition as Really Bad(0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) &Really Good (4). An increase indicated improvement. The total score ranged from 0 to 4, where higher scores indicated improvement.The change from baseline to each postbaseline visit in the PGI-S score is the value at the post-baseline visit minus the value at the baseline visit. If either the baseline or the post-baseline visit value is missing, the change from baseline was missing. A positive change indicated an improvement while a negative change indicated a worsening.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 24 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Impression of Severity Scale (PGI-S)Change at Week 240.36 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.22
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Impression of Severity Scale (PGI-S)Change at Week 520.42 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.21
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Impression of Severity Scale (PGI-S)Change at Week 240.64 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Patient Global Impression of Severity Scale (PGI-S)Change at Week 520.95 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.18
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.15395% CI: [-0.14, 0.86]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00795% CI: [0.19, 1.08]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.10695% CI: [-0.1, 0.93]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.00395% CI: [0.38, 1.51]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Pediatric Incontinence Questionnaire (PIN-Q) Score

PIN-Q measured quality of life via an e-diary. Total score ranged from 0 (no effect) to 80 (worst effect); decrease in score indicated improvement. Total score was 20x average of individual PinQ items, the 20 Likert scales were converted to a score: Items 6 & 17; 0: No to 4: Definitely was used; & For the other 18 items; 0: No to 4: All the time was used. Expectation that questionnaires had limited missing values; if answers \>2 questions were missing, total score was not calculated & was missing. Individual item scores were directly imputed. Change from baseline to each post-baseline visit in the total score was post-baseline visit value minus baseline value. If either baseline or post-baseline visit value was missing, change from baseline was missing. If change was: \<0, improvement between 2 time-points; =0, no change between 2 time points; \>0, worsening between 2 time points.

Time frame: Baseline and weeks 24 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Pediatric Incontinence Questionnaire (PIN-Q) ScoreChange at Week 242.04 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.53
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Change From Baseline in Pediatric Incontinence Questionnaire (PIN-Q) ScoreChange at Week 521.30 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.17
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Pediatric Incontinence Questionnaire (PIN-Q) ScoreChange at Week 24-4.90 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.13
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Change From Baseline in Pediatric Incontinence Questionnaire (PIN-Q) ScoreChange at Week 52-6.79 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.5
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Childrenp-value: 0.35295% CI: [-2.4, 6.49]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 24 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.12795% CI: [-11.34, 1.53]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Childrenp-value: 0.61395% CI: [-3.96, 6.57]t-test, 2 sided
Comparison: Change From Baseline at Week 52 - Adolescentsp-value: 0.05695% CI: [-13.78, 0.2]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) of Mirabegron

Cmax was defined as the maximum plasma concentration of mirabegron.

Time frame: A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.

Population: The analysis population consisted of the pharmacokinetic analysis set (PKAS), which consisted of the subset of the SAF for whom plasma concentration data were available to facilitate derivation of ≥ 1 pharmacokinetic parameter and for whom the time of the last dose prior to sampling was known.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) of Mirabegron9.386 nanogram/milliliter (ng/mL)
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) of Mirabegron9.044 nanogram/milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 5.407
Children PED50 (PKAS)Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) of Mirabegron20.55 nanogram/milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 13.63
Adolescents PED50 (PKAS)Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) of Mirabegron18.40 nanogram/milliliter (ng/mL)Standard Deviation 12.45
Secondary

Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)

An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who was given the study drug or who had undergone study procedures and did not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An AE could therefore be any unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related to the medicinal (investigational) product. A treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was defined as any AE with date of onset occurring on or after the first dose of study medication and up to the end of study.

Time frame: From the first dose of study drug administration up to end-of-treatment (EoT) (up to week 52)

Population: The analysis population consisted of the safety analysis set (SAF), which included of all participants who took at least 1 dose of study drug.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Serious TEAE9 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related TEAE Leading to Death0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related TEAE8 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)TEAE Leading to Permanent Discontinuation3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related Serious TEAE0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related TEAE Leading to Permanent Disc.2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)TEAE33 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Death0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)TEAE Leading to Death0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Death0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related TEAE6 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Serious TEAE5 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related Serious TEAE0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)TEAE Leading to Death0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related TEAE Leading to Death0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)TEAE Leading to Permanent Discontinuation0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)Drug-related TEAE Leading to Permanent Disc.0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs)TEAE18 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)

The Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C) is a 7 point scale that required the clinician to assess how much the participant's overall bladder symptoms since the start of the study on day 1 has improved or worsened and rated as: very much improved (1); much improved (2); minimally improved (3); no change (4); minimally worse (5); much worse (6); or very much worse (7). The total score range from 1-7, where lower scores indicated improvement.

Time frame: Weeks 24 and 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed signifies number of participants with available data at each time point.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Very much Improved6 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Much Improved24 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Minimally Improved6 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - No Change4 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Minimally Worse1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Much Worse0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Very Much Worse0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Very Much Improved8 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Much Improved23 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Minimally Improved5 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - No Change2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Minimally Worse0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Much Worse0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Very Much Worse0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - No Change0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Very much Improved10 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Very Much Improved9 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Much Improved7 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Much Worse1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Minimally Improved5 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Much Improved12 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - No Change1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Minimally Worse0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Minimally Worse1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Minimally Improved1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Much Worse0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 52 - Very Much Worse0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Clinician Global Impression of Change (CGI-C)Week 24 - Very Much Worse0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24

Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories:Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the smell of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1),Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the consumption and the preparation of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Difficult (0),Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) & Really Easy (4).

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Really bad3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Bad1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Not bad, not good3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Good10 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Really good6 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Really bad2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Bad0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Not bad, not good8 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Good11 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Really good2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Difficult2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Not difficult, not easy2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Easy6 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Really Easy13 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Difficult1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Not difficult, not easy3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Easy10 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Really Easy9 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Not difficult, not easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Not bad, not good2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Really Easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Taste - Really good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Not difficult, not easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Not bad, not good2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Prepare - Easy2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Take - Really Easy2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 24Smell - Really good0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4

Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories:Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the smell of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1),Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the consumption and the preparation of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Difficult (0),Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) & Really Easy (4).

Time frame: Week 4

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Not bad, not good4 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Really bad0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Bad3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Not difficult, not easy4 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Bad1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Easy7 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Good11 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Really Easy11 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Not bad, not good8 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Really bad1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Good12 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Not difficult, not easy2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Really good3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Easy12 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Really good1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Really Easy8 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Really Easy2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Not bad, not good2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Taste - Really good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Not bad, not good1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Good1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Smell - Really good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Not difficult, not easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Easy1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Take - Really Easy1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Not difficult, not easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 4Prepare - Easy0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52

Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories:Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the smell of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1),Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the consumption and the preparation of the study medication/oral suspension by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Difficult (0),Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) & Really Easy (4).

Time frame: Week 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Really bad1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Bad2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Not bad, not good5 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Good8 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Really good6 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Really bad2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Bad1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Not bad, not good5 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Good12 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Really good2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Difficult1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Not difficult, not easy3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Easy7 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Really Easy11 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Not difficult, not easy3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Easy9 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Really Easy10 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Not difficult, not easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Not bad, not good2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Really Easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Taste - Really good0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Not difficult, not easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Not bad, not good1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Prepare - Easy2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Good1 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Take - Really Easy2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Oral Suspension at Week 52Smell - Really good0 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24

Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/tablets by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the swallow of the study medication/tablets by ticking one of the following categories: Really Difficult (0), Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) and Really Easy (4).

Time frame: Week 24

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Really bad1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Bad2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Not bad, not good6 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Good4 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Really good4 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Not difficult, not easy2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Easy3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Really easy12 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Not difficult, not easy2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Really easy11 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Not bad, not good15 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Good6 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Swallow - Easy10 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 24Taste - Really good2 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4

Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/tablets by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the swallow of the study medication/tablets by ticking one of the following categories: Really Difficult (0), Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) and Really Easy (4).

Time frame: Week 4

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Bad0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Not bad, not good5 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Good3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Really good1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Not difficult, not easy1 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Easy3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Really easy5 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Not difficult, not easy0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Really easy5 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Not bad, not good7 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Good4 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Swallow - Easy7 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 4Taste - Really good1 Participants
Secondary

Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52

Participants evaluated the taste of the study medication/tablets by ticking 1 of the following categories: Really Bad (0), Bad (1), Not Bad, Not Good (2), Good (3) & Really Good (4). Participants evaluated the swallow of the study medication/tablets by ticking one of the following categories: Really Difficult (0), Difficult (1), Not Difficult, Not Easy (2), Easy (3) and Really Easy (4).

Time frame: Week 52

Population: The analysis population consisted of the FAS. Here, Overall Number of participants analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Bad0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Not bad, not good8 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Good6 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Really good3 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Really difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Difficult0 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Not difficult, not easy2 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Easy4 Participants
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Really easy11 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Not difficult, not easy2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Really bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Really difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Bad0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Really easy11 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Not bad, not good16 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Difficult0 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Good2 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Swallow - Easy7 Participants
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Number of Participants With Study Drug Acceptability for Tablets at Week 52Taste - Really good2 Participants
Secondary

Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron at the End of a Dosing Interval at Steady State (Ctrough)

Ctrough was defined as the measured plasma concentration of mirabegron at the end of a dosing interval at steady state.

Time frame: A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.

Population: The analysis population consisted of the PKAS.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron at the End of a Dosing Interval at Steady State (Ctrough)5.312 ng/mL
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron at the End of a Dosing Interval at Steady State (Ctrough)4.114 ng/mLStandard Deviation 1.186
Children PED50 (PKAS)Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron at the End of a Dosing Interval at Steady State (Ctrough)9.024 ng/mLStandard Deviation 5.149
Adolescents PED50 (PKAS)Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron at the End of a Dosing Interval at Steady State (Ctrough)8.888 ng/mLStandard Deviation 5.588
Secondary

Time to Reach Maximum Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron Following Drug Administration (Tmax)

Tmax was defined as the time to reach maximum plasma concentration following drug administration.

Time frame: A total of 4 samples were collected over 2 sampling days at 2 separate visits at any of week 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, or 52, at the following time points: Sampling day 1- Predose; Sampling day 2- Predose and 2 samples 2-5 hours postdose more than 1 hour apart.

Population: The analysis population consisted of the PKAS.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Children (3 to < 12 Years)Time to Reach Maximum Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron Following Drug Administration (Tmax)3.000 hours
Adolescents (12 to < 18 Years)Time to Reach Maximum Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron Following Drug Administration (Tmax)3.500 hoursStandard Deviation 0.433
Children PED50 (PKAS)Time to Reach Maximum Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron Following Drug Administration (Tmax)3.419 hoursStandard Deviation 0.6608
Adolescents PED50 (PKAS)Time to Reach Maximum Plasma Concentration of Mirabegron Following Drug Administration (Tmax)3.635 hoursStandard Deviation 1.101

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 15, 2026