Ulcerative Colitis
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of SHP647 in inducing remission, based on composite score of patient-reported symptoms and centrally read endoscopy, in participants with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC).
Detailed description
27Mar2020: Enrollment of new patients into this study has been paused due to the COVID-19 situation. The duration of this pause is dependent on the leveling and control of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Interventions
DRUGOntamalimab
Participants will receive 1 mL of ontamalimab sterile aqueous buffered solution at an appropriate concentration to provide the intended dose of drug (25 or 75 mg).
DRUGPlacebo
Participants will receive 1 mL of sterile aqueous buffered solution.
Sponsors
Shire
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
16 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
\- Participants and/or their parent or legally authorized representative must have an understanding, ability, and willingness to fully comply with study procedures and restrictions. * Participants must be able to voluntarily provide written, signed, and dated informed consent and/or assent, as applicable, to participate in the study. * Participants less than (\<) 18 years of age must weigh \>=40 kg and must have body mass index (BMI) \>=16.5 kilogram per square metre (kg/m\^2). * Participants must have a documented diagnosis of UC for \>=3 months before screening. The following must be available in each participant's source documentation: a. A biopsy report to confirm the histological diagnosis. b. A report documenting disease duration based upon prior colonoscopy. Note: If this documentation is not available at the time of screening, a colonoscopy with biopsy to confirm the diagnosis is required during the screening period. * Participants must be willing to undergo a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy, including biopsy sample collection, during screening after all other inclusion criteria have been met. * Participants must have moderate to severe active UC, defined as a total Mayo score of \>=6, including a centrally read endoscopic subscore \>=2, rectal bleeding subscore \>=1, and stool frequency subscore \>=1 at baseline. * Participants must have evidence of UC extending proximal to the rectum (ie, not limited to proctitis). * Participants must have had an inadequate response to, or lost response to, or had an intolerance to at least 1 conventional treatment such as mesalamine (5-aminosalicylate \[ASA\]), glucocorticoids, immunosuppressants (azathioprine \[AZA\], 6-mercaptopurine \[6-MP\], or methotrexate \[MTX\]), or anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF). * Participants receiving any treatment(s) for UC are eligible provided they have been, and are anticipated to be, on a stable dose for the designated period of time. * Participants are males or nonpregnant, nonlactating females who, if sexually active, agree to comply with the contraceptive requirements of the protocol, or females of nonchildbearing potential.
Exclusion criteria
* Participants with indeterminate colitis, microscopic colitis, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced colitis, ischemic colitis, infectious colitis, or clinical/histologic findings suggestive of Crohn's disease. * Participants with colonic dysplasia or neoplasia. (Participants with prior history of adenomatous polyps will be eligible if the polyps have been completely removed.) * Participants with past medical history or presence of toxic megacolon. * Participants with colonic stricture, past medical history of colonic resection, a history of bowel surgery within 6 months before screening, or who are likely to require surgery for UC during the treatment period. * Participants at risk for colorectal cancer must have a colonoscopy performed during the screening period with results available within 10 days before the baseline visit, unless the participant has had a surveillance colonoscopy performed within 1 year prior to screening, and any adenomatous polyps found at that examination have been excised. Colonoscopy report and pathology report (if biopsies are obtained) from the colonoscopy performed during screening or in the prior year confirming no evidence of dysplasia and colon cancer must be available in the source documents. Participants at risk for colorectal cancer include, but are not limited to: 1. Participants with extensive colitis for \>=8 years or disease limited to left side of colon (ie, distal to splenic flexure) for \>=10 years before screening, regardless of age. 2. Participants \>=50 years of age at the time of signing of the informed consent form. \- Participants have had prior treatment with ontamalimab (formerly PF-00547659, SHP647). \- Participants with known or suspected intolerance or hypersensitivity to the investigational product(s), closely related compounds, or any of the stated ingredients. \- Participants have received anti-TNF treatment within 60 days before baseline. \- Participants have received any biologic with immunomodulatory properties (other than anti-TNFs) within 90 days before baseline. \- Participants have received any nonbiologic treatment with immunomodulatory properties (other than their current background UC treatment) within 30 days before baseline. \- Participants have ever received anti-integrin/adhesion molecule treatment (example (eg): natalizumab, vedolizumab, efalizumab, etrolizumab, or any other investigational anti-integrin/adhesion molecule). * Participants have received parenteral or rectal glucocorticoids, or rectal 5-ASA, within 14 days before screening endoscopic procedure. * Participants have received leukocyte apheresis or selective lymphocyte, monocyte, or granulocyte apheresis or plasma exchange within 30 days before baseline. * Participants have participated in other investigational studies within either 30 days or 5 half-lives of investigational product used in the study (whichever is longer) before baseline. * Participants have received a live (attenuated) vaccine within 30 days before the baseline visit. * Participants with active enteric infections (positive stool culture and sensitivity), Clostridium difficile infection or pseudomembranous colitis \[Participants with C. difficile infection at screening may be allowed re-test after treatment\], evidence of active cytomegalovirus infection or Listeria monocytogenes, known active invasive fungal infections such as histoplasmosis or parasitic infections, clinically significant underlying disease that could predispose the participants to infections, or a history of serious infection (requiring parenteral antibiotic and/or hospitalization) within 4 weeks before the baseline visit. * Participants with abnormal chest x-ray findings at screening, such as presence of active tuberculosis (TB), general infections, heart failure, or malignancy. * Participants with evidence of active or latent infection with Mycobacterium TB or participants with this history who have not completed a generally accepted full course of treatment before randomization are excluded. All other participants must have either the Mantoux (purified protein derivative \[PPD\]) tuberculin skin test or interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) performed. Participants who have no history of previously diagnosed active or latent TB are excluded if they have a positive Mantoux (PPD) tuberculin skin test (ie \>=5 millimeter \[mm\] induration) or a positive IGRA (the latter to be tested at the site's local laboratory) during screening or within 12 weeks before screening. If IGRA test cannot be performed locally, a central laboratory may be used, with prior agreement from the sponsor. 1. An IGRA is strongly recommended for participants with a prior Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination, but may be used for any participant. Documentation of IGRA product used and the test result must be in the participant's source documentation if performed locally. Acceptable IGRA products include QuantiFERON TB Gold Plus In-Tube Test. 2. If the results of the IGRA are indeterminate, the test may be repeated, and if a negative result is obtained, enrollment may proceed. In participants with no history of treated active or latent TB, a positive test on repeat will exclude the participant. Participants with a history of active or latent TB infection must follow instructions for Participants with a prior diagnosis of active or latent TB are excluded unless both of the following criteria are met in this criterion. 3. Participants with repeat indeterminate IGRA results, with no prior TB history, may be enrolled after consultation with a pulmonary or infectious disease specialist who determines low risk of infection (ie, participant would be acceptable for immunosuppressant \[eg, anti-TNF\] treatment without additional action). This consultation must be included in source documentation. Results from a chest x-ray, taken within the 12 weeks before or during screening must show no abnormalities suggestive of active TB infection as determined by a qualified medical specialist. Participants with a prior diagnosis of active or latent TB are excluded unless both of the following criteria are met: 1. The participant has previously received an adequate course of treatment for either latent (eg, 9 months of isoniazid or an acceptable alternative regimen, in a locale where rates of primary multidrug TB resistance are \<5%. Participants from regions with higher rates of primary multidrug TB resistance are excluded) or active (acceptable multidrug regimen) TB infection. Evidence of diagnosis and treatment must be included in source documentation. Consultation with a pulmonary or infectious disease specialist to confirm adequate treatment (ie, participant would be acceptable for immunosuppressant \[eg, anti-TNF\] treatment without additional action) must be performed during the screening period. The consultation report must be included in source documentation prior to enrollment. 2. A chest x-ray performed within 12 weeks before screening or during screening indicates no evidence of active or recurrent disease, and documentation of interpretation by a qualified medical specialist must be included in source documentation. * Participants with a pre-existing demyelinating disorder such as multiple sclerosis or new onset seizures, unexplained sensory motor, or cognitive behavioral, neurological deficits, or significant abnormalities noted during screening. * Participants with any unexplained symptoms suggestive of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) based on the targeted neurological assessment during the screening period. * Participants with a transplanted organ. Skin grafts to treat pyoderma gangrenosum are allowed. * Participants with a significant concurrent medical condition at the time of screening or baseline, including, but not limited to, the following: <!-- --> 1. Any major illness/condition or evidence of an unstable clinical condition (eg, renal, hepatic, hematologic, gastrointestinal (except disease under study), endocrine, cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunologic \[eg, Felty's syndrome\], or local active infection/infectious illness) that, in the investigator's judgment will substantially increase the risk to the participant if he or she participates in the study. 2. Cancer or history of cancer or lymphoproliferative disease within the previous 5 years (other than resected cutaneous basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, or carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix that has been treated with no evidence of recurrence). 3. Presence of acute coronary syndrome (eg, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris) within 24 weeks before screening. 4. History of significant cerebrovascular disease within 24 weeks before screening. \- Participants who have had significant trauma or major surgery within 4 weeks before the screening visit, or with any major elective surgery scheduled to occur during the study. \- Participants with evidence of cirrhosis with or without decompensation. \- Participants with primary sclerosing cholangitis. \- Participants with evidence of positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) or hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb). Note: If a participant tests negative for HBsAg, but positive for HBcAb, the participant would be considered eligible if no presence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA is confirmed by HBV DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) reflex testing performed in the central laboratory. * Participants with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) (positive HCV antibody \[HCVAb\] and HCVRNA). Note: Participants who are HCVAb positive without evidence of HCV RNA may be considered eligible (spontaneous viral clearance or previously treated and cured \[defined as no evidence of HCVRNA at least 12 weeks prior to baseline\]). * Participants with any of the following abnormalities in hematology and/or serum chemistry profiles during screening. Note: Screening laboratory tests, if the results are considered by the investigator to be transient and inconsistent with the participant's clinical condition, may be repeated once during the screening period for confirmation. Results must be reviewed for eligibility prior to the screening endoscopy procedure. <!-- --> 1. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels \>=3.0×upper limit of normal (ULN). 2. Total bilirubin level \>=1.5×ULN or \>2.0×ULN if the participant has a known documented history of Gilbert's syndrome. 3. Hemoglobin level \<=80 gram per liter (g/L) (8.0 gram per deciliter \[g/dL\]). 4. Platelet count \<=100×10\^9 per liter (/L) (100,000 cells per cubic millimeter \[mm\^3\]) or \>=1000×10\^9/L (1,000,000 cells/mm\^3). 5. White blood cell count \<=3.5×10\^9/L (3500 cells/mm\^3). \- Absolute neutrophil count (ANC)\<2×10\^9/L (2000 cells/mm\^3). \- Serum creatinine level \>1.5 × ULN or estimated glomerular filtration rate \<30 ml/min/1.73m\^2 based on the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Equation. Note: If platelet count is \<150,000 cells/mm\^3, a further evaluation should be performed to rule out cirrhosis, unless another etiology has already been identified. * Participants with known human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection based on documented history, with positive serological test, or positive HIV serologic test at screening, tested at the site's local laboratory in accordance with country requirements or tested at the central laboratory. Note: A documented negative HIV test within 6 months of screening is acceptable and does not need to be repeated. \- Participants who have, or who have a history of (within 2 years before screening), serious psychiatric disease, alcohol dependency, or substance/drug abuse or dependency of any kind, including abuse of medical marijuana (cannabis). \- Participants with any other severe acute or chronic medical or psychiatric condition or laboratory or electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormality that may increase the risk associated with study participation or investigational product administration or may interfere with the interpretation of study results and, in the judgment of the investigator, would make the participant inappropriate for entry into this study. \- Female participants who are planning to become pregnant during the study period. * Participants who do not agree to postpone donation of any organ or tissue, including male participants who are planning to bank or donate sperm and female participants who are planning to harvest or donate eggs, for the duration of the study and through 16 weeks after last dose of investigational product. * Participants who are investigational site staff members or relatives of those site staff members or Participants who are Shire employees directly involved in the conduct of the study.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With Remission Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Remission was defined as a composite score of patient-reported symptoms using daily e-diary and centrally read endoscopy as stool frequency sub-score of 0 or 1 with at least a 1-point change from baseline, rectal bleeding sub-score of 0 and endoscopic sub-score of 0 or 1 (modified, excluded friability). The composite score was a recommended measure derived from the Mayo score without the physician global assessment (PGA) sub-score and ranged from 0 to 9 points. The Mayo score was a measure of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) disease activity. It ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The sub-scores were stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With Clinical Remission at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Clinical remission was defined by stool frequency sub-score of 0 or 1 with at least a 1-point change from baseline in stool frequency sub-score, and rectal bleeding sub-score of 0. The stool frequency sub-score and rectal bleeding sub-score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. |
| Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Clinical response based on composite score was defined as a decrease from baseline in the composite score of patient-reported symptoms using daily e-diary and centrally read endoscopy of at least 2 points and at least 30 percent (%), with an accompanying decrease in the sub-score for rectal bleeding greater than or equal to (\>=) 1 point or a sub-score for rectal bleeding less than or equal to (\<=) 1. The composite score was a recommended measure derived from the Mayo score without the PGA sub-score and ranged from 0 to 9 points. The Mayo score was a measure of UC disease activity. It ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease The sub-scores were stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3). |
| Number of Participants With Mucosal Healing Based on Endoscopic and Histological Assessment Using the Geboes Score Grading System at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Mucosal healing was defined by centrally read endoscopic sub-score 0 or 1 (modified, excluded friability) and centrally read Geboes score of \<=2. The centrally read endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Geboes score grading system, was a validated score for evaluating histologic disease activity in UC as follows: grade 0 equal to (=) structural and architectural changes; grade 1 = chronic inflammatory infiltrate; grade 2 = lamina propria neutrophils and eosinophils; grade 3 = neutrophils in the epithelium; grade 4 = crypt destruction; grade 5 = erosions or ulceration. A higher Geboes score indicating more severe disease. Number of participants with mucosal healing based on endoscopic and histological assessment using the Geboes score grading system were reported. |
| Number of Participants With Remission Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Remission was defined as a Total Mayo score of \<=2 with no individual sub-score (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, endoscopy \[modified, excluded friability\], and PGA) exceeding 1, at the Week 12. The Total Mayo score ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease: stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3). |
| Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Clinical response (Mayo) was defined as a decrease from baseline in the Total Mayo score of at least 3 points and at least 30%, with an accompanying decrease in the sub-score for rectal bleeding \>=1 point or an absolute sub-score for rectal bleeding \<=1. The Total Mayo score ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of the following 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease: stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3). |
| Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | The partial Mayo score ranged from 0 to 9 points and consisted of the following 3 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease: Stool frequency (0-3); Rectal bleeding (0-3); PGA (0-3). The partial Mayo score did not include the endoscopy sub-score. |
| Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8 | At Weeks 4 and 8 | Number of participants were reported with stool frequency sub-scores of 0 or 1 and rectal bleeding sub-score of 0. Clinical remission was defined as stool frequency sub-score of 0 or 1 with at least a 1-point change from baseline in stool frequency sub-score, and a rectal bleeding sub-score of 0. The stool frequency sub-score and rectal bleeding sub-score of Mayo score ranges from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. |
| Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission With Sub-score of 0 at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Endoscopic remission was defined by centrally read endoscopic sub-score 0 (modified, excluded friability). The centrally read endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. |
| Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | Number of participants were reported with rectal bleeding and stool frequency sub-scores of 0. Clinical remission was defined as both rectal bleeding and stool frequency sub-scores of 0. The stool frequency sub-score and rectal bleeding sub-score of Mayo score ranges from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. |
| Number of Participants With Deep Remission at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Deep remission was defined as both endoscopic and rectal bleeding sub-scores of 0, and stool frequency sub-score \<=1 and a centrally read Geboes score of \<=2. The stool frequency sub-score, rectal bleeding sub-score and endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The composite score was a recommended measure consisted of the Mayo score without the PGA sub-score and ranged from 0 to 9 points. Geboes score grading system was a validated score for evaluating histologic disease activity in UC as follows: grade 0 = structural and architectural changes; grade 1 = chronic inflammatory infiltrate; grade 2 = lamina propria neutrophils and eosinophils; grade 3 = neutrophils in the epithelium; grade 4 = crypt destruction; grade 5 = erosions or ulceration. A higher Geboes score indicating more severe disease. |
| Change From Baseline in Average Worst Abdominal Pain Score Based on Patient Reported Outcome-ulcerative Colitis (PRO-UC) Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data of abdominal pain worst severity, as experienced over the previous 24 hours, in the e-diary. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or non-consecutive) of last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Abdominal pain's worst severity assessment was based on an 11-point numerical rating scale with 0 anchor at No pain and 10 at Worst Imaginable Pain as experienced over the previous 24 hours, in the e-diary. Higher scores indicating more severe pain. |
| Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission at Week 12 | At Week 12 | Endoscopic remission was defined by centrally read endoscopic sub-score 0 or 1 (modified, excluded friability). The centrally read endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. |
| Change From Baseline in Average Bowel Movements With Urgency Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for number of bowel movement with urgency, as experienced over the previous 24 hours. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number bowel movements urgency ranged from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements. |
| Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | From start of study up to follow up (Week 29) | Number of participants based on inpatient hospitalization due to all-cause hospitalization, gastrointestinal related, other illness/problem, and undergo gastrointestinal related procedures during the entire study period were reported. |
| Change From Baseline in Absolute Stool Frequency (Average Number of Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for average number of bowel movements, as experienced over the previous 24 hours. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number bowel movements ranged from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements. |
| Change From Baseline in Absolute Rectal Bleeding (Average Number Bowel Movements With Blood) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for average number of bowel movements with blood, as experienced over the previous 24 hours. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number bowel movements with blood ranged from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements with blood. |
| Change From Baseline in Total Sign/Symptom Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | Total sign/symptom score was the average of the average scores of worst abdominal pain over the past 24 hours and the conversion scale values for number of bowel movements blood, number of bowel movements with urgency, number of bowel movements and number of loose bowel movements, with scale ranged of 0-10, with higher scores indicating higher severity. |
| Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Baseline, Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ was a psychometrically validated participant-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for measuring the disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) in participants with inflammatory bowel disease, including UC. The IBDQ consisted of 32 items, which were grouped into 4 dimensions: bowel function, emotional status, systemic symptoms, and social function. The 4 domains were scored as follows: Bowel symptoms: 10 to 70; Systemic symptoms: 5 to 35; Emotional function: 12 to 84; Social function: 5 to 35. Higher scores indicating a better quality of life. |
| Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Baseline, Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ was a psychometrically validated PRO instrument for measuring the disease-specific HRQL in participants with inflammatory bowel disease, included UC. The IBDQ consisted of 32 items, which were grouped into 4 dimensions: bowel function, emotional status, systemic symptoms, and social function. The 4 domains were scored as follows: Bowel symptoms: 10 to 70; Systemic symptoms: 5 to 35; Emotional function: 12 to 84; Social function: 5 to 35. The total IBDQ score ranged from 32 to 224. For the total score and each domain, a higher score indicating better HRQL. A score of at least 170 corresponds to clinical remission and an increase of at least 16 points was considered to indicate a clinically meaningful improvement. |
| Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | SF-36 was a generic quality-of-life instrument that had been widely used to assess HRQL of participants. Generic instruments were used in general populations to assess a wide range of domains applicable to a variety of health states, conditions, and diseases. The SF-36 consisted of 36 items that were aggregated into 8 multi-item scales (physical functioning \[1=yes, limited a lot to 3=no, not limited at all\], role-physical \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\], bodily pain \[1=very severe to 6=none\], general health \[1=poor to 5=excellent\], vitality \[1=none of the time to 5=all of the time\], social functioning \[1=all of the time: to 5=none of the time\], role emotional \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\] and mental health \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\]), with scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicating better HRQL. |
| Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | SF-36 was a generic quality-of-life instrument that had been widely used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) of participants. SF-36 consisted of 36 items that were aggregated into 8 multi-item scales (physical functioning \[1=yes, limited a lot to 3=no, not limited at all\], role-physical \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\], bodily pain \[1=very severe to 6=none\], general health \[1=poor to 5=excellent\], vitality \[1=none of the time to 5=all of the time\], social functioning \[1=all of the time: to 5=none of the time\], role emotional \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\] and mental health \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\]). Four domains comprised physical component summary (PCS) score (physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health) and remaining 4 domains comprised mental component summary (MCS) score (vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, mental health). The scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicating better HRQL. |
| Median Duration of Total Inpatient Days | From start of study up to follow-up (Week 29) | Inpatient days were calculated as Date of discharge - Date of admission + 1. Median duration of total inpatient days during the entire study period was reported. |
| Change From Baseline in Diarrhea (Average Loose Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | Baseline, Week 12 | PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for number of loose bowel movement, as experienced over the previous 24 hours, in the e-diary. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number of loose bowel movement ranged from 0-27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements. |
Countries
Argentina, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey (Türkiye), Ukraine, United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
The study was conducted at 205 sites between 5 December 2017 (first participant first visit) and 06 October 2020 (last participant last visit).
Pre-assignment details
A total of 279 participants were enrolled and randomized in this study.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Placebo Participants received placebo matched to ontamalimab subcutaneous (SC) injection, using a prefilled syringe (PFS) on Week 0, Week 4, and Week 8 in a 12-week treatment period. | 56 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg Participants received 25 milligrams (mg) of ontamalimab SC injection, using a PFS on Week 0, Week 4 and Week 8 in a 12-week treatment period. | 111 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg Participants received 75 mg of ontamalimab SC injection, using a PFS on Week 0, Week 4 and Week 8 in a 12-week treatment period. | 112 |
| Total | 279 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 | FG002 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Adverse Event | 5 | 4 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Lack of Efficacy | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Lost to Follow-up | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Pregnancy | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Protocol Deviation | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Placebo | Total | Ontamalimab 75 mg | Ontamalimab 25 mg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 41.6 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.5 | 43.3 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.58 | 43.9 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.08 | 43.5 Years STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.16 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 5 Participants | 38 Participants | 16 Participants | 17 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 51 Participants | 240 Participants | 96 Participants | 93 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 8 Participants | 3 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race Asian: Japanese | 6 Participants | 17 Participants | 6 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race Asian: Korean | 4 Participants | 17 Participants | 8 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race Asian: Other | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race Black or African American | 2 Participants | 7 Participants | 1 Participants | 4 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race Multiple | 1 Participants | 7 Participants | 1 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race Other (Unspecified) | 1 Participants | 7 Participants | 5 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Race White | 41 Participants | 214 Participants | 88 Participants | 85 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 23 Participants | 114 Participants | 45 Participants | 46 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 33 Participants | 165 Participants | 67 Participants | 65 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 56 | 0 / 111 | 0 / 112 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 7 / 56 | 5 / 111 | 7 / 112 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 4 / 56 | 5 / 111 | 3 / 112 |
Outcome results
Primary
Number of Participants With Remission Based on Composite Score at Week 12
Remission was defined as a composite score of patient-reported symptoms using daily e-diary and centrally read endoscopy as stool frequency sub-score of 0 or 1 with at least a 1-point change from baseline, rectal bleeding sub-score of 0 and endoscopic sub-score of 0 or 1 (modified, excluded friability). The composite score was a recommended measure derived from the Mayo score without the physician global assessment (PGA) sub-score and ranged from 0 to 9 points. The Mayo score was a measure of Ulcerative Colitis (UC) disease activity. It ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The sub-scores were stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3).
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: Full analysis set (FAS) consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of investigational product (IP).
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Remission Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | 7 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Remission Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | 30 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Remission Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | 33 Participants |
p-value: 0.027Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: 0.014Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Absolute Rectal Bleeding (Average Number Bowel Movements With Blood) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12
PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for average number of bowel movements with blood, as experienced over the previous 24 hours. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number bowel movements with blood ranged from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements with blood.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Absolute Rectal Bleeding (Average Number Bowel Movements With Blood) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.05 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.379 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Absolute Rectal Bleeding (Average Number Bowel Movements With Blood) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -3.74 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.267 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Absolute Rectal Bleeding (Average Number Bowel Movements With Blood) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -3.41 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.265 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Absolute Stool Frequency (Average Number of Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12
PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for average number of bowel movements, as experienced over the previous 24 hours. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number bowel movements ranged from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Absolute Stool Frequency (Average Number of Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -1.26 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.386 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Absolute Stool Frequency (Average Number of Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -3.32 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.272 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Absolute Stool Frequency (Average Number of Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.97 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.272 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Average Bowel Movements With Urgency Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12
PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for number of bowel movement with urgency, as experienced over the previous 24 hours. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number bowel movements urgency ranged from 0 to 27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Average Bowel Movements With Urgency Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -1.09 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.373 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Average Bowel Movements With Urgency Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.87 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.263 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Average Bowel Movements With Urgency Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.56 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.264 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Average Worst Abdominal Pain Score Based on Patient Reported Outcome-ulcerative Colitis (PRO-UC) Daily e-Diary at Week 12
PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data of abdominal pain worst severity, as experienced over the previous 24 hours, in the e-diary. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or non-consecutive) of last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Abdominal pain's worst severity assessment was based on an 11-point numerical rating scale with 0 anchor at No pain and 10 at Worst Imaginable Pain as experienced over the previous 24 hours, in the e-diary. Higher scores indicating more severe pain.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Average Worst Abdominal Pain Score Based on Patient Reported Outcome-ulcerative Colitis (PRO-UC) Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -1.69 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.309 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Average Worst Abdominal Pain Score Based on Patient Reported Outcome-ulcerative Colitis (PRO-UC) Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.49 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.218 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Average Worst Abdominal Pain Score Based on Patient Reported Outcome-ulcerative Colitis (PRO-UC) Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -1.83 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.215 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Diarrhea (Average Loose Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12
PRO-UC signs and symptom data were collected using a daily e-diary during treatment period. Collection of daily e-diary data was begun at least 10 days before the baseline visit. Participants were asked to record the signs and symptom data for number of loose bowel movement, as experienced over the previous 24 hours, in the e-diary. Participant's signs and symptom average scores at each scheduled visit were calculated based on data recorded over the most recent 3 days (consecutive or nonconsecutive) of the last 10 days prior to the scheduled visit start date excluding the following days: day of any bowel preparation, day of endoscopy, any days between day of bowel preparation and day of endoscopy, and the 2 days after the day of endoscopy. Average number of loose bowel movement ranged from 0-27. Higher scores indicating more frequent bowel movements.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Diarrhea (Average Loose Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -1.41 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.405 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Diarrhea (Average Loose Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -3.50 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.286 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Diarrhea (Average Loose Bowel Movements) Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.87 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.284 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12
IBDQ was a psychometrically validated PRO instrument for measuring the disease-specific HRQL in participants with inflammatory bowel disease, included UC. The IBDQ consisted of 32 items, which were grouped into 4 dimensions: bowel function, emotional status, systemic symptoms, and social function. The 4 domains were scored as follows: Bowel symptoms: 10 to 70; Systemic symptoms: 5 to 35; Emotional function: 12 to 84; Social function: 5 to 35. The total IBDQ score ranged from 32 to 224. For the total score and each domain, a higher score indicating better HRQL. A score of at least 170 corresponds to clinical remission and an increase of at least 16 points was considered to indicate a clinically meaningful improvement.
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 8 and 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed refer to participants evaluable at specific time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Change at Week 8 | 27.56 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 4.574 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Change at Week 12 | 28.39 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 4.99 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Change at Week 8 | 45.63 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 3.38 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Change at Week 12 | 47.75 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 3.649 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Change at Week 8 | 42.58 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 3.358 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in IBDQ Total Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | Change at Week 12 | 43.85 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 3.604 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12
IBDQ was a psychometrically validated participant-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for measuring the disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) in participants with inflammatory bowel disease, including UC. The IBDQ consisted of 32 items, which were grouped into 4 dimensions: bowel function, emotional status, systemic symptoms, and social function. The 4 domains were scored as follows: Bowel symptoms: 10 to 70; Systemic symptoms: 5 to 35; Emotional function: 12 to 84; Social function: 5 to 35. Higher scores indicating a better quality of life.
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 8 and 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and number analyzed refer to participants evaluable at specific time point.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Bowel Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 9.59 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.611 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Bowel Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 9.51 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.707 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Emotional Status Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 8.91 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.701 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Emotional Status Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 9.94 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.861 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Systemic Symptoms Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 3.84 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.759 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Systemic Symptoms Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 3.85 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.814 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Social Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 5.06 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.873 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Social Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 5.09 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.926 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Emotional Status Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 15.18 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.255 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Social Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 6.97 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.643 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Emotional Status Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 14.84 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.359 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Systemic Symptoms Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 6.61 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.561 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Systemic Symptoms Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 7.34 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.596 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Bowel Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 16.66 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.189 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Bowel Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 17.71 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.25 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Social Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 7.68 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.677 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Emotional Status Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 14.41 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.247 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Bowel Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 15.86 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.232 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Bowel Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 15.36 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.18 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Emotional Status Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 14.73 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.341 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Social Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 6.75 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.64 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Systemic Symptoms Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 6.04 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.587 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Systemic Symptoms Dimension Score: Change at Week 8 | 5.86 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.557 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) Domains Scores at Weeks 8 and 12 | IBDQ Social Function Dimension Score: Change at Week 12 | 7.03 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.668 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12
SF-36 was a generic quality-of-life instrument that had been widely used to assess HRQL of participants. Generic instruments were used in general populations to assess a wide range of domains applicable to a variety of health states, conditions, and diseases. The SF-36 consisted of 36 items that were aggregated into 8 multi-item scales (physical functioning \[1=yes, limited a lot to 3=no, not limited at all\], role-physical \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\], bodily pain \[1=very severe to 6=none\], general health \[1=poor to 5=excellent\], vitality \[1=none of the time to 5=all of the time\], social functioning \[1=all of the time: to 5=none of the time\], role emotional \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\] and mental health \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\]), with scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicating better HRQL.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Physical Functioning: Change at Week 12 | 3.40 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.901 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Role-Physical: Change at Week 12 | 4.47 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.205 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Bodily Pain: Change at Week 12 | 5.55 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.293 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | General Health: Change at Week 12 | 3.93 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.203 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Vitality: Change at Week 12 | 3.59 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.381 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Social Functioning: Change at Week 12 | 3.59 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.233 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Role-Emotional: Change at Week 12 | 1.27 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.317 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Mental Health: Change at Week 12 | 3.56 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.268 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Bodily Pain: Change at Week 12 | 8.18 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.941 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Role-Emotional: Change at Week 12 | 5.79 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.958 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | General Health: Change at Week 12 | 7.00 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.88 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Vitality: Change at Week 12 | 8.23 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.008 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Social Functioning: Change at Week 12 | 7.43 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.898 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Physical Functioning: Change at Week 12 | 5.03 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.657 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Role-Physical: Change at Week 12 | 7.39 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.884 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Mental Health: Change at Week 12 | 7.90 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.925 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Bodily Pain: Change at Week 12 | 7.06 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.926 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Role-Physical: Change at Week 12 | 6.90 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.874 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Physical Functioning: Change at Week 12 | 3.79 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.646 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | General Health: Change at Week 12 | 6.34 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.865 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Role-Emotional: Change at Week 12 | 5.68 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.944 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Social Functioning: Change at Week 12 | 6.54 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.884 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Vitality: Change at Week 12 | 7.43 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.993 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Individual Domain Scores) at Week 12 | Mental Health: Change at Week 12 | 6.47 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.911 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12
SF-36 was a generic quality-of-life instrument that had been widely used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) of participants. SF-36 consisted of 36 items that were aggregated into 8 multi-item scales (physical functioning \[1=yes, limited a lot to 3=no, not limited at all\], role-physical \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\], bodily pain \[1=very severe to 6=none\], general health \[1=poor to 5=excellent\], vitality \[1=none of the time to 5=all of the time\], social functioning \[1=all of the time: to 5=none of the time\], role emotional \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\] and mental health \[1=all of the time to 5=none of the time\]). Four domains comprised physical component summary (PCS) score (physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health) and remaining 4 domains comprised mental component summary (MCS) score (vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, mental health). The scores ranged from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicating better HRQL.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12 | Physical Component Summary: Change at Week 12 | 4.84 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.982 |
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12 | Mental Component Summary: Change at Week 12 | 2.09 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 1.301 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12 | Physical Component Summary: Change at Week 12 | 6.45 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.721 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12 | Mental Component Summary: Change at Week 12 | 7.37 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.949 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12 | Physical Component Summary: Change at Week 12 | 5.54 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.709 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Version 2, Acute (Physical and Mental Component Summary Scores) at Week 12 | Mental Component Summary: Change at Week 12 | 6.68 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.935 |
Secondary
Change From Baseline in Total Sign/Symptom Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12
Total sign/symptom score was the average of the average scores of worst abdominal pain over the past 24 hours and the conversion scale values for number of bowel movements blood, number of bowel movements with urgency, number of bowel movements and number of loose bowel movements, with scale ranged of 0-10, with higher scores indicating higher severity.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Change From Baseline in Total Sign/Symptom Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -1.15 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.246 |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Change From Baseline in Total Sign/Symptom Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.32 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.173 |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Change From Baseline in Total Sign/Symptom Score Based on PRO-UC Daily e-Diary at Week 12 | -2.00 Score on a Scale | Standard Error 0.172 |
Secondary
Median Duration of Total Inpatient Days
Inpatient days were calculated as Date of discharge - Date of admission + 1. Median duration of total inpatient days during the entire study period was reported.
Time frame: From start of study up to follow-up (Week 29)
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP. Here, overall number of participants analyzed signifies participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEDIAN) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Median Duration of Total Inpatient Days | 10.5 Days |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Median Duration of Total Inpatient Days | 7.0 Days |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Median Duration of Total Inpatient Days | 2.0 Days |
Secondary
Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization
Number of participants based on inpatient hospitalization due to all-cause hospitalization, gastrointestinal related, other illness/problem, and undergo gastrointestinal related procedures during the entire study period were reported.
Time frame: From start of study up to follow up (Week 29)
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | All-Cause Hospitalization | 2 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Gastrointestinal Related | 1 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Other Illness/Problem | 1 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Undergo Gastrointestinal Related Procedures | 1 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Undergo Gastrointestinal Related Procedures | 0 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | All-Cause Hospitalization | 3 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Other Illness/Problem | 2 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Gastrointestinal Related | 2 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Undergo Gastrointestinal Related Procedures | 0 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Gastrointestinal Related | 1 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | Other Illness/Problem | 2 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants Based on Inpatient Hospitalization | All-Cause Hospitalization | 2 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Clinical Remission at Week 12
Clinical remission was defined by stool frequency sub-score of 0 or 1 with at least a 1-point change from baseline in stool frequency sub-score, and rectal bleeding sub-score of 0. The stool frequency sub-score and rectal bleeding sub-score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission at Week 12 | 10 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission at Week 12 | 50 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission at Week 12 | 56 Participants |
p-value: <0.001Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: <0.001Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary
Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12
Number of participants were reported with rectal bleeding and stool frequency sub-scores of 0. Clinical remission was defined as both rectal bleeding and stool frequency sub-scores of 0. The stool frequency sub-score and rectal bleeding sub-score of Mayo score ranges from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
Time frame: At Weeks 4, 8, and 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 8 | 5 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 4 | 0 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 12 | 6 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 8 | 29 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 4 | 15 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 12 | 36 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 4 | 12 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 12 | 26 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Both Rectal Bleeding and Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 8 | 19 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8
Number of participants were reported with stool frequency sub-scores of 0 or 1 and rectal bleeding sub-score of 0. Clinical remission was defined as stool frequency sub-score of 0 or 1 with at least a 1-point change from baseline in stool frequency sub-score, and a rectal bleeding sub-score of 0. The stool frequency sub-score and rectal bleeding sub-score of Mayo score ranges from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
Time frame: At Weeks 4 and 8
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8 | At Week 4 | 4 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8 | At Week 8 | 10 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8 | At Week 4 | 28 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8 | At Week 8 | 52 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8 | At Week 4 | 22 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Remission With Stool Frequency Sub-scores of 0 or 1 and Rectal Bleeding Sub-score of 0 at Weeks 4 and 8 | At Week 8 | 56 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Composite Score at Week 12
Clinical response based on composite score was defined as a decrease from baseline in the composite score of patient-reported symptoms using daily e-diary and centrally read endoscopy of at least 2 points and at least 30 percent (%), with an accompanying decrease in the sub-score for rectal bleeding greater than or equal to (\>=) 1 point or a sub-score for rectal bleeding less than or equal to (\<=) 1. The composite score was a recommended measure derived from the Mayo score without the PGA sub-score and ranged from 0 to 9 points. The Mayo score was a measure of UC disease activity. It ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease The sub-scores were stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3).
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | 16 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | 67 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Composite Score at Week 12 | 64 Participants |
p-value: <0.001Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: <0.001Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary
Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12
Clinical response (Mayo) was defined as a decrease from baseline in the Total Mayo score of at least 3 points and at least 30%, with an accompanying decrease in the sub-score for rectal bleeding \>=1 point or an absolute sub-score for rectal bleeding \<=1. The Total Mayo score ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of the following 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease: stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3).
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | 19 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | 66 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Clinical Response Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | 63 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Deep Remission at Week 12
Deep remission was defined as both endoscopic and rectal bleeding sub-scores of 0, and stool frequency sub-score \<=1 and a centrally read Geboes score of \<=2. The stool frequency sub-score, rectal bleeding sub-score and endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. The composite score was a recommended measure consisted of the Mayo score without the PGA sub-score and ranged from 0 to 9 points. Geboes score grading system was a validated score for evaluating histologic disease activity in UC as follows: grade 0 = structural and architectural changes; grade 1 = chronic inflammatory infiltrate; grade 2 = lamina propria neutrophils and eosinophils; grade 3 = neutrophils in the epithelium; grade 4 = crypt destruction; grade 5 = erosions or ulceration. A higher Geboes score indicating more severe disease.
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Deep Remission at Week 12 | 1 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Deep Remission at Week 12 | 11 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Deep Remission at Week 12 | 9 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission at Week 12
Endoscopic remission was defined by centrally read endoscopic sub-score 0 or 1 (modified, excluded friability). The centrally read endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission at Week 12 | 7 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission at Week 12 | 39 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission at Week 12 | 38 Participants |
p-value: 0.001Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: 0.003Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary
Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission With Sub-score of 0 at Week 12
Endoscopic remission was defined by centrally read endoscopic sub-score 0 (modified, excluded friability). The centrally read endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease.
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission With Sub-score of 0 at Week 12 | 1 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission With Sub-score of 0 at Week 12 | 14 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Endoscopic Remission With Sub-score of 0 at Week 12 | 14 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Mucosal Healing Based on Endoscopic and Histological Assessment Using the Geboes Score Grading System at Week 12
Mucosal healing was defined by centrally read endoscopic sub-score 0 or 1 (modified, excluded friability) and centrally read Geboes score of \<=2. The centrally read endoscopic sub-score of Mayo score ranged from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease. Geboes score grading system, was a validated score for evaluating histologic disease activity in UC as follows: grade 0 equal to (=) structural and architectural changes; grade 1 = chronic inflammatory infiltrate; grade 2 = lamina propria neutrophils and eosinophils; grade 3 = neutrophils in the epithelium; grade 4 = crypt destruction; grade 5 = erosions or ulceration. A higher Geboes score indicating more severe disease. Number of participants with mucosal healing based on endoscopic and histological assessment using the Geboes score grading system were reported.
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Mucosal Healing Based on Endoscopic and Histological Assessment Using the Geboes Score Grading System at Week 12 | 6 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Mucosal Healing Based on Endoscopic and Histological Assessment Using the Geboes Score Grading System at Week 12 | 35 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Mucosal Healing Based on Endoscopic and Histological Assessment Using the Geboes Score Grading System at Week 12 | 30 Participants |
p-value: 0.002Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
p-value: 0.017Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
Secondary
Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12
The partial Mayo score ranged from 0 to 9 points and consisted of the following 3 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease: Stool frequency (0-3); Rectal bleeding (0-3); PGA (0-3). The partial Mayo score did not include the endoscopy sub-score.
Time frame: At Weeks 4, 8, and 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 8 | 12 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 4 | 6 Participants |
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 12 | 10 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 8 | 53 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 4 | 26 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 12 | 49 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 4 | 23 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 12 | 52 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Partial Mayo Score <=2 With no Individual Sub-score Greater Than (>) 1 at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 | At Week 8 | 41 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Participants With Remission Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12
Remission was defined as a Total Mayo score of \<=2 with no individual sub-score (stool frequency, rectal bleeding, endoscopy \[modified, excluded friability\], and PGA) exceeding 1, at the Week 12. The Total Mayo score ranged from 0 to 12 points and consisted of 4 sub-scores, each graded from 0 to 3 with higher scores indicating more severe disease: stool frequency (0-3); rectal bleeding (0-3); findings of endoscopy (0-3); PGA (0-3).
Time frame: At Week 12
Population: FAS consisted of all participants in the randomized set who had received at least 1 dose of IP.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Number of Participants With Remission Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | 5 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 25 mg | Number of Participants With Remission Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | 28 Participants |
| Ontamalimab 75 mg | Number of Participants With Remission Based on Total Mayo Score at Week 12 | 26 Participants |