Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of PF-04965842 in Subjects Aged 12 Years And Older With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis

Measure	Time frame	Description
Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and Greater Than or Equal to 2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	Baseline, Week 12	IGA assesses severity of AD on a 5 point scale (0 to 4, higher scores indicate more severity). Scores: 0= clear, no inflammatory signs of AD; 1= almost clear, AD not fully cleared- light pink residual lesions (except post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation), just perceptible erythema, papulation/induration lichenification, excoriation, and no oozing/crusting; 2= mild AD with light red lesions, slight but definite erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and no oozing/crusting; 3= moderate AD with red lesions, moderate erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and slight oozing/crusting; 4= severe AD with deep dark red lesions, severe erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and moderate to severe oozing/crusting. Assessment excluded sole, palms and scalp.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Response of >=75 Percent (%) Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	Baseline, Week 12	EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\Ah\(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\Au\(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\At\(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\Al\(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.

Measure	Time frame	Description
Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	PSAAD is a daily participant reported symptom electronic diary. Participants rated their symptoms of AD over the past 24 hours, using 11 items (itchy skin, painful skin, dry skin, flaky skin, cracked skin, bumpy skin, red skin, discolored skin \[lighter or darker\], bleeding from skin, seeping or oozing fluid from skin \[other than blood\], and skin swelling). Participant had to think about all the areas of their body affected by their skin condition and chose the number that best described their experience for each of the 11 items, from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), higher scores signified worse skin condition. Total PSAAD score = arithmetic mean of 11 items, 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), where higher score = worse skin condition.
Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis Total Score at Week 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set	Baseline, Week 12	PSAAD is a daily participant reported symptom electronic diary. Participants rated their symptoms of AD over the past 24 hours, using 11 items (itchy skin, painful skin, dry skin, flaky skin, cracked skin, bumpy skin, red skin, discolored skin \[lighter or darker\], bleeding from skin, seeping or oozing fluid from skin \[other than blood\], and skin swelling). Participant had to think about all the areas of their body affected by their skin condition and chose the number that best described their experience for each of the 11 items, from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), higher scores signified worse skin condition. Total PSAAD score = arithmetic mean of 11 items, 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), where higher score = worse skin condition.
Time to Achieve >=4 Points Improvement From Baseline in Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus	Baseline up to Week 12	Participants were asked to assess their worst itching/pruritus due to AD over the past 24 hours on an NRS scale ranged from 0 (no itching) to 10 (worst itch imaginable), where higher scores indicated greater severity. 95% CI was based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8	EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\Ah\(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\Au\(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\At\(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\Al\(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8	IGA assesses severity of AD on a 5 point scale (0 to 4, higher scores indicate more severity). Scores: 0= clear, no inflammatory signs of AD; 1= almost clear, AD not fully cleared- light pink residual lesions (except post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation), just perceptible erythema, papulation/induration lichenification, excoriation, and no oozing/crusting; 2= mild AD with light red lesions, slight but definite erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and no oozing/crusting; 3= moderate AD with red lesions, moderate erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and slight oozing/crusting; 4= severe AD with deep dark red lesions, severe erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and moderate to severe oozing/crusting. Assessment excluded sole, palms and scalp.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2, 4, 8, 12	IGA assesses severity of AD on a 5 point scale (0 to 4, higher scores indicate more severity). Scores: 0= clear, no inflammatory signs of AD; 1= almost clear, AD not fully cleared- light pink residual lesions (except post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation), just perceptible erythema, papulation/induration lichenification, excoriation, and no oozing/crusting; 2= mild AD with light red lesions, slight but definite erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and no oozing/crusting; 3= moderate AD with red lesions, moderate erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and slight oozing/crusting; 4= severe AD with deep dark red lesions, severe erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and moderate to severe oozing/crusting. Assessment excluded sole, palms and scalp.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\Ah\(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\Au\(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\At\(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\Al\(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\Ah\(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\Au\(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\At\(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\Al\(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\Ah\(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\Au\(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\At\(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\Al\(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.
Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\Ah\(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\Au\(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\At\(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\Al\(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.
Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	DLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on participant's (aged above 17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life. Scores from all 10 questions added up to give DLQI total score range from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of participants.
Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	4 body regions were evaluated: head and neck, upper limbs, trunk (including axillae and groin) and lower limbs (including buttocks). Scalp, palms and soles were excluded. BSA was calculated using handprint method. Number of handprints (size of participant's hand with fingers in a closed position) fitting in the affected area of a body region was estimated. Maximum number of handprints were 10 for head and neck, 20 for upper limbs, 30 for trunk and 40 for lower limbs. Surface area of body region equivalent to 1 handprint: 1 handprint was equal to 10% for head and neck, 5% for upper limbs, 3.33% for trunk and 2.5% for lower limbs. Percent BSA for a body region was calculated as = total number of handprints in a body region \* % surface area equivalent to 1 handprint. Overall % BSA for an individual: arithmetic mean of % BSA of all 4 body regions, ranges from 0 to 100%, with higher values representing greater severity of AD.
Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2, 4, 8, 12	4 body regions were evaluated: head and neck, upper limbs, trunk (including axillae and groin) and lower limbs (including buttocks). Scalp, palms and soles were excluded. BSA was calculated using handprint method. Number of handprints (size of participant's hand with fingers in a closed position) fitting in the affected area of a body region was estimated. Maximum number of handprints were 10 for head and neck, 20 for upper limbs, 30 for trunk and 40 for lower limbs. Surface area of body region equivalent to 1 handprint: 1 handprint was equal to 10% for head and neck, 5% for upper limb, 3.33% for trunk and 2.5% for lower limb. % BSA for a body region was calculated as = total number of handprints in a body region \* % surface area equivalent to 1 handprint. Overall % BSA for an individual: arithmetic mean of % BSA of all 4 body regions, ranges from 0 to 100%, with higher values representing greater severity of AD.
Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none=0, mild=1, moderate=2,severe=3. The severity scores were summed to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using visual analogue scale (VAS) where 0 = no itch/no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch/sleeplessness, higher scores=worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness were added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD=worse outcome.
Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2) or severe (3). The severity scores added to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep loss, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using VAS where 0 = no itch or no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch or sleeplessness, higher scores worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD = worse outcome.
Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2) or severe (3). The severity scores added to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep loss, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using VAS where 0 = no itch or no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch or sleeplessness, higher scores worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD = worse outcome.
Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2) or severe (3). The severity scores added to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep loss, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using VAS where 0 = no itch or no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch or sleeplessness, higher scores worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD = worse outcome.
Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	PSAAD is a daily participant reported symptom electronic diary. Participants rated their symptoms of AD over the past 24 hours, using 11 items (itchy skin, painful skin, dry skin, flaky skin, cracked skin, bumpy skin, red skin, discolored skin \[lighter or darker\], bleeding from skin, seeping or oozing fluid from skin \[other than blood\], and skin swelling). Participant had to think about all the areas of their body affected by their skin condition and chose the number that best described their experience for each of the 11 items, from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), higher scores signified worse skin condition. Total PSAAD score = arithmetic mean of 11 items, 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), where higher score = worse skin condition.
Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	DLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on participant's (aged above 17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life. Scores from all 10 questions added up to give DLQI total score range from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of participants.
Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	CDLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on adolescents (aged 12-17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicate more impact on quality of life. CDLQI total score was the sum of individual scores of question 1-10 and ranges from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of children.
Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	DLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on participant's (aged above 17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life. Scores from all 10 questions added up to give DLQI total score range from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of participants.
Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	CDLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on adolescents (aged 12-17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicate more impact on quality of life. CDLQI total score was the sum of individual scores of question 1-10 and ranges from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of children.
Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	CDLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on adolescents (aged 12-17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicate more impact on quality of life. CDLQI total score was the sum of individual scores of question 1-10 and ranges from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of children.
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-D: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of depression) to 21 (severe feeling of depression); higher score indicating greater severity of depression symptoms.
Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-A: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of anxiety) to 21 (severe feeling of anxiety); higher score indicating greater severity of anxiety.
Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-A: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of anxiety) to 21 (severe feeling of anxiety); higher score indicating greater severity of anxiety.
Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-D: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of depression) to 21 (severe feeling of depression); higher score indicating greater severity of depression symptoms.
Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-A: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of anxiety) to 21 (severe feeling of anxiety); higher score indicating greater severity of anxiety.
Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-D: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of depression) to 21 (severe feeling of depression); higher score indicating greater severity of depression symptoms.
Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	POEM is a 7-item participant reported outcome (PRO) measure used to assess the impact of AD (dryness, itching, flaking, cracking, sleep loss, bleeding and weeping) over the past week. Each item is scored as no days (0), 1-2 days (1), 3-4 days (2), 5-6 days (3) and every day (4). The score ranges from 0 to 28, where higher score indicated greater severity.
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	Participant responded to Overall, how would you describe your Atopic Dermatitis right now? on a scale: 0= clear; 1= almost clear; 2= mild; 3= moderate; and 4= severe. Higher scores indicated more severity.
Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	Participant responded to Overall, how would you describe your Atopic Dermatitis right now? on a scale: 0= clear; 1= almost clear; 2= mild; 3= moderate; and 4= severe. Higher scores indicated more severity.
Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EQ-5D-5L: standardized participant (aged \>17 years) completed questionnaire consisted of 2 components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D health state profile had 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Responses to 5 dimensions comprised a health state/a single utility index value. E.g. if a participant responded no problems for each 5 dimensions, then health state was coded as 11111 with a predefined index value to it. Every health state (coded as combination of responses on each of 5 dimensions) had a unique predefined utility index value assigned to it, by EuroQol. US value sets (with all possible health states) was used for adults in the study, range from 1 to -0.109. Higher (positive) scores = better health state.
Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health-related quality of life and translates that score into an index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consists of two components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D VAS was used to record a participant's (aged above 17 years) rating for his/her current health-related quality of life state and captured on a vertical VAS (0-100), where 0 = worst imaginable health state and 100 = best imaginable health state.
Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EQ-5D-Y: standardized participant (aged 12-17 years) completed questionnaire consisted of 2 components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D health state profile had 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Responses to 5 dimensions comprised a health state/a single utility index value. E.g. if a participant responded no problems for each 5 dimensions, then health state was coded as 11111 with a predefined index value to it. Every health state (coded as combination of responses on each of 5 dimensions) had a unique predefined utility index value assigned to it, by EuroQol. UK value sets (with all possible health states) was used for adolescents in the study, range from 1 to -0.594. Higher (positive) scores = better health state.
Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	EQ-5D-Y is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health-related quality of life and translates that score into an index value or utility score specifically developed and validated for use by youths age 12-17 years. EQ-5D-Y consists of two components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D VAS was used to record a participant's rating for his/her current health-related quality of life state and captured on a vertical VAS (0-100), where 0 = worst imaginable health state and 100 = best imaginable health state.
Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) at Week 12	Baseline, Week 12	FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants (aged above 17 years) scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Higher the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated) greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-F score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (the best score) where higher scores indicated better overall health status (less fatigue).
Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12	Participants were asked to assess their worst pruritus/itching due to AD over the past 24 hours on an NRS scale ranged from 0 (no itching) to 10 (worst possible itching), where higher scores indicated greater severity.
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 (SF-36v2) Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Physical Component Summary	Baseline, Week 12	SF-36v2 health survey is a self-administered questionnaire consisting of 36 questions, measuring 8 health domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health. These domains were also summarized as physical and mental component summary scores. Physical component summary: the minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 100. Higher scores indicates a better health state.
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Mental Component Summary	Baseline, Week 12	SF-36v2 health survey is a self-administered questionnaire consisting of 36 questions, measuring 8 health domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health. These domains were also summarized as physical and mental component summary scores. Mental component summary: the minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 100. Higher scores indicates a better health state.
Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Day 1 of Week 4: 0 hour(Pre-dose), 0.5 hours post-dose; Day 1 of Week 12: 0.5, 4 hours post-dose	Concentration versus time summary was calculated by setting concentration values below the lower limit of quantification (LLQ) = =1.00 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL) to zero.
Change From Baseline in Pediatric Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (Peds-FACIT-F) at Week 12	Baseline, Week 12	Peds-FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire for adolescents of 12-17 years of age. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all of the time). Higher the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the Peds-FACIT-F score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (the best score) where higher scores indicated better overall health status (less fatigue).
Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 12	Participants were asked to assess their worst pruritus/itching due to AD over the past 24 hours on an NRS scale ranged from 0 (no itching) to 10 (worst possible itching), where higher scores indicated greater severity.

Arm	Count
PF-04965842 100 mg Participants were randomized to receive a tablet of PF-04965842 100 milligram (mg) and a tablet of matching placebo orally once daily for 12 weeks. Participants who discontinued early from treatment or who were not eligible for LTE study, were followed up to 4 weeks after last dose of study drug.	156
PF-04965842 200 mg Participants were randomized to receive PF-04965842 200 mg (2 tablets of 100 mg each) orally once daily for 12 weeks. Participants who discontinued early from treatment or who were not eligible for LTE study, were followed up to 4 weeks after last dose of study drug.	154
Placebo Participants were randomized to receive 2 tablets of placebo matched to PF-04965842 100 mg orally once daily for 12 weeks. Participants who discontinued early from treatment or who were not eligible for LTE study, were followed up to 4 weeks after last dose of study drug.	77
Total	387

Period	Reason	FG000	FG001	FG002
Overall Study	Adverse Event	9	9	7
Overall Study	Lack of Efficacy	1	0	2
Overall Study	Lost to Follow-up	2	1	1
Overall Study	Medication error,no linked adverse event	0	0	1
Overall Study	Other	2	1	0
Overall Study	Protocol Violation	2	2	1
Overall Study	Withdrawal By Parent/Guardian	0	1	0
Overall Study	Withdrawal by Subject	5	3	4

Characteristic	PF-04965842 100 mg	PF-04965842 200 mg	Placebo	Total
Age, Continuous	32.6 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.4	33.0 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 17.4	31.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.4	32.5 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 16
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino	10 Participants	4 Participants	6 Participants	20 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino	144 Participants	149 Participants	71 Participants	364 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported	2 Participants	1 Participants	0 Participants	3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native	1 Participants	4 Participants	1 Participants	6 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Asian	26 Participants	26 Participants	6 Participants	58 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American	15 Participants	11 Participants	6 Participants	32 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race	1 Participants	6 Participants	1 Participants	8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	0 Participants	1 Participants	0 Participants	1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported	0 Participants	2 Participants	1 Participants	3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB) White	113 Participants	104 Participants	62 Participants	279 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Female	66 Participants	73 Participants	28 Participants	167 Participants
Sex: Female, Male Male	90 Participants	81 Participants	49 Participants	220 Participants

Event type	EG000 affected / at risk	EG001 affected / at risk	EG002 affected / at risk
deaths Total, all-cause mortality	0 / 156	0 / 154	0 / 77
other Total, other adverse events	65 / 156	65 / 154	26 / 77
serious Total, serious adverse events	5 / 156	5 / 154	3 / 77

Primary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Response of >=75 Percent (%) Improvement From Baseline at Week 12

EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\*Ah\*(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\*Au\*(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\*At\*(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\*Al\*(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Response of >=75 Percent (%) Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	39.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Response of >=75 Percent (%) Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	62.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Response of >=75 Percent (%) Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	11.8 percentage of participants

Comparison: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [17.4, 38.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [40.5, 61.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Primary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and Greater Than or Equal to 2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 12

IGA assesses severity of AD on a 5 point scale (0 to 4, higher scores indicate more severity). Scores: 0= clear, no inflammatory signs of AD; 1= almost clear, AD not fully cleared- light pink residual lesions (except post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation), just perceptible erythema, papulation/induration lichenification, excoriation, and no oozing/crusting; 2= mild AD with light red lesions, slight but definite erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and no oozing/crusting; 3= moderate AD with red lesions, moderate erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and slight oozing/crusting; 4= severe AD with deep dark red lesions, severe erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and moderate to severe oozing/crusting. Assessment excluded sole, palms and scalp.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and Greater Than or Equal to 2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	23.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and Greater Than or Equal to 2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	43.8 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and Greater Than or Equal to 2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 12	7.9 percentage of participants

Comparison: The estimate and confidence interval (CI) for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.003795% CI: [6.8, 24.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [26.2, 45.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

CDLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on adolescents (aged 12-17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicate more impact on quality of life. CDLQI total score was the sum of individual scores of question 1-10 and ranges from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of children.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-4.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-5.3 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-5.2 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-6.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-7.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-5.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-7.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-8.2 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-3.9 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.8 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-3.1 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-3.3 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.27595% CI: [-3.5, 1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.02895% CI: [-4.8, -0.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.005195% CI: [-5.9, -1.1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-8.8, -4]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.170695% CI: [-5.1, 0.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.004895% CI: [-7.4, -1.4]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.062995% CI: [-5.2, 0.1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.0195% CI: [-6.2, -0.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

DLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on participant's (aged above 17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life. Scores from all 10 questions added up to give DLQI total score range from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of participants.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-5.9 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-6.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-6.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-7.0 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-9.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-7.6 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-9.3 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-9.6 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-4.2 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-3.5 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-4.0 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-2.1 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-5.4, -2.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-7.1, -3.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [-5, -1.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-7.8, -4.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.007595% CI: [-4.8, -0.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-7.4, -3.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.007295% CI: [-4.8, -0.8]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-6.9, -2.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\*Ah\*(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\*Au\*(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\*At\*(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\*Al\*(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-9.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-16.3 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-16.6 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-14.7 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-14.7 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-19.6 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-21.3 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-22.3 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-7.8 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-4.1 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-6.8 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-8.2 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-8.2, -3.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-13, -8.1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-10.7, -5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-15.6, -9.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.6, -5.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-16.5, -10.4]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-11.6, -5.1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-17.3, -10.8]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EQ-5D-5L: standardized participant (aged \>17 years) completed questionnaire consisted of 2 components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D health state profile had 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Responses to 5 dimensions comprised a health state/a single utility index value. E.g. if a participant responded no problems for each 5 dimensions, then health state was coded as 11111 with a predefined index value to it. Every health state (coded as combination of responses on each of 5 dimensions) had a unique predefined utility index value assigned to it, by EuroQol. US value sets (with all possible health states) was used for adults in the study, range from 1 to -0.109. Higher (positive) scores = better health state.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	0.049 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	0.062 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	0.053 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	0.058 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	0.078 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	0.084 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	0.097 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	0.092 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	0.014 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	0.037 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	0.005 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	0.016 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.045395% CI: [0.001, 0.066]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.036, 0.101]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.182195% CI: [-0.012, 0.062]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.003895% CI: [0.018, 0.092]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.024195% CI: [0.006, 0.09]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [0.051, 0.134]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.046195% CI: [0.001, 0.087]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.003795% CI: [0.021, 0.107]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EQ-5D-5L is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health-related quality of life and translates that score into an index value or utility score. EQ-5D-5L consists of two components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D VAS was used to record a participant's (aged above 17 years) rating for his/her current health-related quality of life state and captured on a vertical VAS (0-100), where 0 = worst imaginable health state and 100 = best imaginable health state.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	5.586 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	6.207 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	6.982 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	8.604 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	10.409 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	9.697 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	10.740 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	11.931 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.035 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	1.846 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	0.937 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	1.038 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.031995% CI: [0.397, 8.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [4.496, 12.822]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.070295% CI: [-0.362, 9.084]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [5.349, 14.821]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.0395% CI: [0.589, 11.501]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000595% CI: [4.368, 15.237]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.006795% CI: [2.119, 13.019]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000895% CI: [3.933, 14.815]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EQ-5D-Y: standardized participant (aged 12-17 years) completed questionnaire consisted of 2 components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D health state profile had 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: 1= no problems, 2= slight problems, 3= moderate problems, 4= severe problems, and 5= extreme problems. Responses to 5 dimensions comprised a health state/a single utility index value. E.g. if a participant responded no problems for each 5 dimensions, then health state was coded as 11111 with a predefined index value to it. Every health state (coded as combination of responses on each of 5 dimensions) had a unique predefined utility index value assigned to it, by EuroQol. UK value sets (with all possible health states) was used for adolescents in the study, range from 1 to -0.594. Higher (positive) scores = better health state.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	0.122 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	0.168 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	0.115 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	0.160 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	0.278 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	0.209 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	0.198 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	0.215 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	0.153 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	0.118 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	0.119 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-0.006 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.956895% CI: [-0.137, 0.13]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.178295% CI: [-0.042, 0.223]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.049195% CI: [0.001, 0.347]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.001595% CI: [0.112, 0.456]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.963895% CI: [-0.185, 0.194]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.401695% CI: [-0.109, 0.27]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.942995% CI: [-0.184, 0.198]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.521295% CI: [-0.13, 0.254]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EQ-5D-Y is a standardized participant completed questionnaire that measures health-related quality of life and translates that score into an index value or utility score specifically developed and validated for use by youths age 12-17 years. EQ-5D-Y consists of two components: a health state profile and an optional VAS. EQ-5D VAS was used to record a participant's rating for his/her current health-related quality of life state and captured on a vertical VAS (0-100), where 0 = worst imaginable health state and 100 = best imaginable health state.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	11.828 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	5.515 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	10.347 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	5.359 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	12.510 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	15.496 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	14.933 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	17.224 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	4.276 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	3.384 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.494 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	3.156 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.646795% CI: [-7.095, 11.358]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.014795% CI: [2.338, 20.761]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.189495% CI: [-3.453, 17.159]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.001595% CI: [6.699, 27.281]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.126795% CI: [-2.518, 19.862]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.100995% CI: [-1.866, 20.573]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.191595% CI: [-3.107, 15.249]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.006495% CI: [3.754, 22.143]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) at Week 12

FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants (aged above 17 years) scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Higher the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated) greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-F score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (the best score) where higher scores indicated better overall health status (less fatigue).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) at Week 12	2.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) at Week 12	3.3 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) at Week 12	-1.3 units on a scale

p-value: 0.010295% CI: [0.9, 6.4]ANCOVA

p-value: 0.001395% CI: [1.8, 7.3]ANCOVA

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-A: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of anxiety) to 21 (severe feeling of anxiety); higher score indicating greater severity of anxiety.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.6 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-1.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-1.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-2.3 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-2.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-2.2 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-1.7 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.0 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.0 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-1.0 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-0.9 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.613495% CI: [-0.9, 0.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.042295% CI: [-1.4, 0]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.20595% CI: [-1.2, 0.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.001295% CI: [-1.9, -0.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.265795% CI: [-1.2, 0.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.001995% CI: [-2, -0.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.167595% CI: [-1.3, 0.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.008595% CI: [-1.8, -0.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-D: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of depression) to 21 (severe feeling of depression); higher score indicating greater severity of depression symptoms.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-0.7 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-1.0 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-1.3 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-2.0 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.7 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-0.2 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	0.1 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-0.3 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-0.2 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.171895% CI: [-1.1, 0.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.001895% CI: [-1.7, -0.4]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000595% CI: [-2, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.5, -1.1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.047695% CI: [-1.5, 0]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.4, -1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.002895% CI: [-1.9, -0.4]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.3, -0.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Participant responded to Overall, how would you describe your Atopic Dermatitis right now? on a scale: 0= clear; 1= almost clear; 2= mild; 3= moderate; and 4= severe. Higher scores indicated more severity.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-0.6 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-0.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-1.0 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.0 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-1.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-1.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.3 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-0.5 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-0.4 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-0.5 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-0.3 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.00295% CI: [-0.6, -0.1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.001195% CI: [-0.7, -0.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.2, -0.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.00295% CI: [-0.8, -0.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.2, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.001495% CI: [-0.8, -0.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.3, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

POEM is a 7-item participant reported outcome (PRO) measure used to assess the impact of AD (dryness, itching, flaking, cracking, sleep loss, bleeding and weeping) over the past week. Each item is scored as no days (0), 1-2 days (1), 3-4 days (2), 5-6 days (3) and every day (4). The score ranges from 0 to 28, where higher score indicated greater severity.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-6.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-6.2 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-4.6 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-6.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-10.6 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-8.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-10.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-10.6 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-1.8 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-3.7 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-3.4 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-2.4 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000695% CI: [-4.4, -1.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-7.9, -4.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-5.6, -2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-10.2, -6.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.009695% CI: [-4.7, -0.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-9.3, -5.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.004995% CI: [-5.2, -0.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-9, -4.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Pediatric Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (Peds-FACIT-F) at Week 12

Peds-FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire for adolescents of 12-17 years of age. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all of the time). Higher the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the Peds-FACIT-F score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (the best score) where higher scores indicated better overall health status (less fatigue).

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Pediatric Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (Peds-FACIT-F) at Week 12	2.2 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Pediatric Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (Peds-FACIT-F) at Week 12	2.1 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Pediatric Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (Peds-FACIT-F) at Week 12	1.2 units on a scale

p-value: 0.524195% CI: [-2.1, 4.2]ANCOVA

p-value: 0.582195% CI: [-2.3, 4.1]ANCOVA

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

4 body regions were evaluated: head and neck, upper limbs, trunk (including axillae and groin) and lower limbs (including buttocks). Scalp, palms and soles were excluded. BSA was calculated using handprint method. Number of handprints (size of participant's hand with fingers in a closed position) fitting in the affected area of a body region was estimated. Maximum number of handprints were 10 for head and neck, 20 for upper limbs, 30 for trunk and 40 for lower limbs. Surface area of body region equivalent to 1 handprint: 1 handprint was equal to 10% for head and neck, 5% for upper limbs, 3.33% for trunk and 2.5% for lower limbs. Percent BSA for a body region was calculated as = total number of handprints in a body region \* % surface area equivalent to 1 handprint. Overall % BSA for an individual: arithmetic mean of % BSA of all 4 body regions, ranges from 0 to 100%, with higher values representing greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-11.8 Percentage BSA
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-20.2 Percentage BSA
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-23.2 Percentage BSA
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-25.1 Percentage BSA
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-33.4 Percentage BSA
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-18.8 Percentage BSA
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-31.5 Percentage BSA
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-27.0 Percentage BSA
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-11.4 Percentage BSA
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-8.5 Percentage BSA
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-8.9 Percentage BSA
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-4.0 Percentage BSA

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000495% CI: [-12.1, -3.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-19, -10.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-16.6, -6.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-23.4, -13.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-19.7, -9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-28, -17.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-19.3, -8.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-27.6, -16.5]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set

PSAAD is a daily participant reported symptom electronic diary. Participants rated their symptoms of AD over the past 24 hours, using 11 items (itchy skin, painful skin, dry skin, flaky skin, cracked skin, bumpy skin, red skin, discolored skin \[lighter or darker\], bleeding from skin, seeping or oozing fluid from skin \[other than blood\], and skin swelling). Participant had to think about all the areas of their body affected by their skin condition and chose the number that best described their experience for each of the 11 items, from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), higher scores signified worse skin condition. Total PSAAD score = arithmetic mean of 11 items, 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), where higher score = worse skin condition.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 2	-1.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 4	-1.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 8	-2.2 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 12	-2.2 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 12	-3.2 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 2	-2.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 8	-3.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 4	-3.0 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 12	-1.1 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 4	-0.7 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 8	-1.2 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set	Change at Week 2	-0.5 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.4, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2, -1.2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.6, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.8, -1.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.003595% CI: [-1.5, -0.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.5, -1.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.00195% CI: [-1.7, -0.4]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.7, -1.4]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis Total Score at Week 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set

PSAAD is a daily participant reported symptom electronic diary. Participants rated their symptoms of AD over the past 24 hours, using 11 items (itchy skin, painful skin, dry skin, flaky skin, cracked skin, bumpy skin, red skin, discolored skin \[lighter or darker\], bleeding from skin, seeping or oozing fluid from skin \[other than blood\], and skin swelling). Participant had to think about all the areas of their body affected by their skin condition and chose the number that best described their experience for each of the 11 items, from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), higher scores signified worse skin condition. Total PSAAD score = arithmetic mean of 11 items, 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), where higher score = worse skin condition.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: Per-protocol analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication and who had no major protocol violations. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis Total Score at Week 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set	-2.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis Total Score at Week 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set	-3.4 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis Total Score at Week 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set	-1.1 units on a scale

Comparison: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000295% CI: [-2, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-3, -1.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2) or severe (3). The severity scores added to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep loss, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using VAS where 0 = no itch or no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch or sleeplessness, higher scores worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD = worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-16.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-23.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-26.0 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-27.0 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-35.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-24.4 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-33.7 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-32.6 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-13.6 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-10.5 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-11.7 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-5.5 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-14.8, -7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-22.7, -15.1]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-17.3, -7.8]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-26.8, -17.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-19.5, -9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-27.2, -16.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-19, -7.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-27.5, -16.3]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2) or severe (3). The severity scores added to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep loss, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using VAS where 0 = no itch or no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch or sleeplessness, higher scores worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD = worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-2.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-2.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-2.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-2.9 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-3.7 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-3.1 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-3.8 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-3.7 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 12	-1.6 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 4	-1.0 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 8	-1.3 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Change at Week 2	-0.8 units on a scale

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-1.9, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 2: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-3, -1.7]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.2, -0.9]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 4: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-3.4, -2]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.3, -0.8]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 8: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-3.2, -1.8]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: 0.000595% CI: [-2.1, -0.6]Mixed Models Analysis

Comparison: Change at Week 12: MMRM contained fixed factors of treatment, week, treatment by week interaction, randomization strata (baseline disease severity and age category) and baseline value and used an unstructured covariance matrix.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [-2.9, -1.4]Mixed Models Analysis

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Mental Component Summary

SF-36v2 health survey is a self-administered questionnaire consisting of 36 questions, measuring 8 health domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health. These domains were also summarized as physical and mental component summary scores. Mental component summary: the minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 100. Higher scores indicates a better health state.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Mental Component Summary	1.5 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Mental Component Summary	2.8 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Mental Component Summary	-0.2 units on a scale

p-value: 0.225695% CI: [-1, 4.4]ANCOVA

p-value: 0.027595% CI: [0.3, 5.8]ANCOVA

Secondary

Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 (SF-36v2) Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Physical Component Summary

SF-36v2 health survey is a self-administered questionnaire consisting of 36 questions, measuring 8 health domains: physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health, bodily pain, general health perceptions, vitality, social functioning, role limitations due to emotional problems, and mental health. These domains were also summarized as physical and mental component summary scores. Physical component summary: the minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 100. Higher scores indicates a better health state.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (LEAST_SQUARES_MEAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 (SF-36v2) Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Physical Component Summary	4.3 units on a scale
PF-04965842 200 mg	Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 (SF-36v2) Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Physical Component Summary	5.2 units on a scale
Placebo	Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 (SF-36v2) Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Physical Component Summary	0.5 units on a scale

p-value: 0.001395% CI: [1.5, 6.1]ANCOVA

p-value: <0.000195% CI: [2.4, 7]ANCOVA

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

PSAAD is a daily participant reported symptom electronic diary. Participants rated their symptoms of AD over the past 24 hours, using 11 items (itchy skin, painful skin, dry skin, flaky skin, cracked skin, bumpy skin, red skin, discolored skin \[lighter or darker\], bleeding from skin, seeping or oozing fluid from skin \[other than blood\], and skin swelling). Participant had to think about all the areas of their body affected by their skin condition and chose the number that best described their experience for each of the 11 items, from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), higher scores signified worse skin condition. Total PSAAD score = arithmetic mean of 11 items, 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms), where higher score = worse skin condition.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	51.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	62.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	60.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	61.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	70.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	68.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	69.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	77.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	40.9 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	44.8 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	44.8 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	28.4 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.002895% CI: [8.7, 35.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [27.1, 53.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.021795% CI: [2.8, 31.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [18.5, 45.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.036395% CI: [1.4, 30]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.001195% CI: [9.8, 37.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.00895% CI: [5.8, 34.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [15, 43.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Participant responded to Overall, how would you describe your Atopic Dermatitis right now? on a scale: 0= clear; 1= almost clear; 2= mild; 3= moderate; and 4= severe. Higher scores indicated more severity.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies the number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	14.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	17.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	7.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	21.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	31.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	19.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	34.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	36.0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	8.5 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	1.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	5.4 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	6.8 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.057595% CI: [0.3, 11.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000295% CI: [10.7, 25.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.041195% CI: [1.3, 17.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [16.9, 35.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.078195% CI: [-0.1, 18]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [16.2, 36.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.007595% CI: [5.3, 23.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [19.6, 38.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\*Ah\*(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\*Au\*(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\*At\*(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\*Al\*(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	4.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	6.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	13.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	11.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	6.6 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.95% CI: [-3.8, 3.8]

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.95% CI: [-3.9, 3.9]

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.023495% CI: [1.3, 11.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.060495% CI: [-0.3, 9.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.002295% CI: [5.5, 17.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.025595% CI: [1.2, 11.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.00195% CI: [6.7, 19.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\*Ah\*(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\*Au\*(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\*At\*(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\*Al\*(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	34.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	54.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	57.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	57.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	75.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	55.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	76.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	73.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	22.4 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	21.1 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	24.0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	10.4 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [13.9, 34.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [34.7, 55.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [21.6, 45.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [41.2, 64.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [21.9, 46.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [41.3, 64.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [23.3, 47.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [42, 65]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8

EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\*Ah\*(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\*Au\*(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\*At\*(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\*Al\*(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies the number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 4	27.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 2	10.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 8	38.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 4	47.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 2	24.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 8	57.8 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 2	3.9 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 8	13.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 4	14.5 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.086995% CI: [-0.3, 13.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [12, 28.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.025995% CI: [2.6, 23.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [21.7, 44.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [14.2, 35.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [33.6, 55.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

EASI evaluates severity of participants' AD (excluded scalp, palms, soles) based on severity of AD clinical signs and % of body surface area (BSA) affected. Severity of clinical signs of AD (erythema, induration/papulation, excoriation and lichenification) scored separately for each of 4 body regions (head and neck, upper limbs, trunk \[including axillae and groin)\] and lower limbs \[including buttocks\]) on 4-point scale: 0= absent; 1= mild; 2= moderate; 3= severe. EASI area score was based upon % BSA with AD in body region: 0 (0%), 1 (\>0 to \<10%), 2 (10 to \<30%), 3 (30 to \<50%), 4 (50 to \<70%), 5 (70 to \<90%) and 6 (90 to 100%). Total EASI score =0.1\*Ah\*(Eh+Ih+Exh+Lh) + 0.2\*Au\*(Eu+Iu+ExU+Lu) + 0.3\*At\*(Et+It+Ext+Lt) + 0.4\*Al\*(El+Il+Exl+Ll); A = EASI area score; E = erythema; I = induration/papulation; Ex = excoriation; L = lichenification; h = head and neck; u = upper limbs; t = trunk; l = lower limbs. Total EASI score ranged from 0.0 to 72.0, higher scores = greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	1.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	7.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	14.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	18.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	38.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	5.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	33.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	24.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	5.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	3.9 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	5.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	1.3 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.728595% CI: [-3.9, 5.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.144895% CI: [-1.2, 9.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.257695% CI: [-2.6, 10.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000195% CI: [12, 28.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.042395% CI: [1.3, 16.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [18.7, 37.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.006695% CI: [5.4, 21.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [24.3, 42.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

IGA assesses severity of AD on a 5 point scale (0 to 4, higher scores indicate more severity). Scores: 0= clear, no inflammatory signs of AD; 1= almost clear, AD not fully cleared- light pink residual lesions (except post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation), just perceptible erythema, papulation/induration lichenification, excoriation, and no oozing/crusting; 2= mild AD with light red lesions, slight but definite erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and no oozing/crusting; 3= moderate AD with red lesions, moderate erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and slight oozing/crusting; 4= severe AD with deep dark red lesions, severe erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and moderate to severe oozing/crusting. Assessment excluded sole, palms and scalp.

Time frame: Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	7.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	4.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	11.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	13.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	6.6 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.95% CI: [-3.8, 3.8]

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.95% CI: [-3.9, 3.9]

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.023495% CI: [1.3, 11.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.059295% CI: [-0.3, 9.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.002295% CI: [5.5, 17.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.01995% CI: [1.7, 12.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.00195% CI: [6.7, 19.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8

IGA assesses severity of AD on a 5 point scale (0 to 4, higher scores indicate more severity). Scores: 0= clear, no inflammatory signs of AD; 1= almost clear, AD not fully cleared- light pink residual lesions (except post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation), just perceptible erythema, papulation/induration lichenification, excoriation, and no oozing/crusting; 2= mild AD with light red lesions, slight but definite erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and no oozing/crusting; 3= moderate AD with red lesions, moderate erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and slight oozing/crusting; 4= severe AD with deep dark red lesions, severe erythema, papulation/induration, lichenification, excoriation and moderate to severe oozing/crusting. Assessment excluded sole, palms and scalp.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies the number of participants evaluable for the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 8	20.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 4	10.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 2	3.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 8	35.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 2	9.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 4	27.0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 4	5.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 2	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8	Week 8	6.7 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.080295% CI: [-0.7, 8.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.004595% CI: [4, 15.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.188895% CI: [-1.9, 12.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [13, 30.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.007195% CI: [5.2, 22.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [19.8, 38.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-A: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of anxiety) to 21 (severe feeling of anxiety); higher score indicating greater severity of anxiety.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	56.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	56.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	43.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	56.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	53.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	58.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	46.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	46.2 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	75.0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	75.0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	37.5 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	75.0 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.403695% CI: [-58.4, 20.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.15895% CI: [-75.9, 5.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.51495% CI: [-53.5, 25.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.414995% CI: [-63.3, 23.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.403695% CI: [-58.4, 20.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.209295% CI: [-70.9, 9.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.598295% CI: [-29.1, 53]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.864795% CI: [-36.3, 44.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-D: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of depression) to 21 (severe feeling of depression); higher score indicating greater severity of depression symptoms.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	20.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	60.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	40.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	40.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	75.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	75.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	75.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	75.0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	66.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	66.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	66.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	100.0 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.054695% CI: [-117.5, -39.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.357395% CI: [-62.5, 6.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.921995% CI: [-55.6, 48.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.317395% CI: [-14.4, 63.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.540895% CI: [-77, 27]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.317395% CI: [-14.4, 63.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.540895% CI: [-77, 27]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.317395% CI: [-14.4, 63.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-A: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of anxiety) to 21 (severe feeling of anxiety); higher score indicating greater severity of anxiety.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	48.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	50.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	42.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	39.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	48.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	64.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	58.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	54.5 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	38.9 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	55.6 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	22.2 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	38.9 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.553995% CI: [-19.6, 37.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.056195% CI: [0.8, 55.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.74695% CI: [-33.4, 23.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 195% CI: [-28.3, 28.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.147495% CI: [-4.5, 46.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.012395% CI: [12.1, 62.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.97695% CI: [-28.5, 27.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.596595% CI: [-20.4, 36.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

HADS: participant rated 14-item questionnaire. HADS consisted of 2 subscales: HADS-anxiety scale (HADS-A) and HADS-depression scale (HADS-D), both of these subscales comprised of 7 items each. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale, score range from 0 to 3, where higher scores indicates more anxiety/depression symptoms. HADS-A assesses state of generalized anxiety (anxious mood, restlessness, anxious thoughts, panic attacks). HADS-D assesses state of lost interest and diminished pleasure response (lowering of hedonic tone). HADS-D: sum of all 7 items resulted in score range of 0 (no presence of depression) to 21 (severe feeling of depression); higher score indicating greater severity of depression symptoms.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	45.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	68.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	57.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	50.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	75.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	60.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	70.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	68.4 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	33.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	55.6 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	66.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	22.2 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.227895% CI: [-9.9, 58]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.099695% CI: [-2, 72.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.444995% CI: [-21.6, 50.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.413995% CI: [-21.6, 55.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.72995% CI: [-40.7, 27.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.658595% CI: [-27.3, 44.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.363895% CI: [-18.7, 55.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.05595% CI: [2.4, 78.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)

Participants were asked to assess their worst pruritus/itching due to AD over the past 24 hours on an NRS scale ranged from 0 (no itching) to 10 (worst possible itching), where higher scores indicated greater severity.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 12

Population: Per-protocol analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication and who had no major protocol violations. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 12	41.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 4	34.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 2	20.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 12	60.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 2	47.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 4	63.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 4	20.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 2	3.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)	Week 12	12.3 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: 0.005595% CI: [7.4, 25.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [33.1, 53.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: 0.113895% CI: [-3, 28]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [26.2, 57.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [15.3, 42.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [34.6, 61.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)

Participants were asked to assess their worst pruritus/itching due to AD over the past 24 hours on an NRS scale ranged from 0 (no itching) to 10 (worst possible itching), where higher scores indicated greater severity.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 8	34.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 4	32.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 2	20.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 12	37.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 8	59.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 2	45.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 4	58.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 12	57.2 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 2	2.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 8	14.4 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 12	15.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)	Week 4	17.2 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: 0.000495% CI: [10.2, 25.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [33.6, 51.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: 0.025195% CI: [1.9, 28]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [27.8, 54.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: 0.001995% CI: [7.4, 32.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [32.7, 57.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: 0.000395% CI: [10.3, 34.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: Each complete imputed data set was analyzed using the CMH risk difference method adjusting by randomization strata, separately for each week. Results from multiply imputed data sets were combined using Rubin's rules to obtain treatment difference, 95% CI and p-value.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [29.6, 53.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

CDLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on adolescents (aged 12-17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicate more impact on quality of life. CDLQI total score was the sum of individual scores of question 1-10 and ranges from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of children.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	66.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	73.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	73.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	69.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	77.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	83.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	74.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	83.9 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	40.0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	56.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	53.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	35.7 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.249795% CI: [-9.1, 43.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.237195% CI: [-9, 43.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.069795% CI: [-0.8, 58.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.00395% CI: [16.2, 71.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.058395% CI: [2, 59.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.008595% CI: [13.2, 69.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.194895% CI: [-9.8, 48.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.029695% CI: [2.8, 58.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

CDLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on adolescents (aged 12-17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicate more impact on quality of life. CDLQI total score was the sum of individual scores of question 1-10 and ranges from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of children.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	3.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	13.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	12.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	19.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	9.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	12.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	9.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	0 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	7.1 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.479595% CI: [-10.3, 16.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.95% CI: [-12.7, 12.7]

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.145295% CI: [-3.6, 30.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.223295% CI: [-6.1, 25.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.570795% CI: [-13.7, 25.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.577795% CI: [-13.6, 25.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.074495% CI: [1, 37.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.223295% CI: [-6.1, 25.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

DLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on participant's (aged above 17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life. Scores from all 10 questions added up to give DLQI total score range from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of participants.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	10.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	15.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	17.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	20.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	31.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	23.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	35.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	32.5 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	12.1 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	8.5 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	8.8 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	3.4 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.123895% CI: [-0.7, 13.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000895% CI: [11, 29.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.209195% CI: [-2.8, 16.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000595% CI: [12.9, 35]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.116195% CI: [-0.9, 19.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000295% CI: [15.3, 37.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.183795% CI: [-2.8, 19.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.004695% CI: [8.1, 31.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

DLQI is a 10-item questionnaire that measures the impact of skin disease on participant's (aged above 17 years) quality of life over the last week. Each question was evaluated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very much); where higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life. Scores from all 10 questions added up to give DLQI total score range from 0 (not at all) to 30 (very much). Higher scores indicated more impact on quality of life of participants.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participant who were evaluable for this measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	67.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	72.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	64.7 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	67.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	72.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	71.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	82.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	85.2 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	43.6 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	51.8 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	48.1 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	35.7 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [17.2, 46]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [21.5, 49.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.00995% CI: [5.2, 35.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [19, 47.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.042195% CI: [0.6, 32.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [18.9, 48.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.003595% CI: [8.2, 38.8]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000295% CI: [13.8, 43.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

4 body regions were evaluated: head and neck, upper limbs, trunk (including axillae and groin) and lower limbs (including buttocks). Scalp, palms and soles were excluded. BSA was calculated using handprint method. Number of handprints (size of participant's hand with fingers in a closed position) fitting in the affected area of a body region was estimated. Maximum number of handprints were 10 for head and neck, 20 for upper limbs, 30 for trunk and 40 for lower limbs. Surface area of body region equivalent to 1 handprint: 1 handprint was equal to 10% for head and neck, 5% for upper limb, 3.33% for trunk and 2.5% for lower limb. % BSA for a body region was calculated as = total number of handprints in a body region \* % surface area equivalent to 1 handprint. Overall % BSA for an individual: arithmetic mean of % BSA of all 4 body regions, ranges from 0 to 100%, with higher values representing greater severity of AD.

Time frame: Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	8.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	21.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	16.2 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	2.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	33.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	38.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	27.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	5.2 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	5.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	1.3 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	6.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	3.9 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.52195% CI: [-3.4, 6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.141695% CI: [-1.3, 9.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.200295% CI: [-2.1, 11.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [15.1, 32.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.043495% CI: [1.3, 17.9]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [17.1, 36.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.001995% CI: [7.5, 24]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [24, 42.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none (0), mild (1), moderate (2) or severe (3). The severity scores added to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep loss, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using VAS where 0 = no itch or no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch or sleeplessness, higher scores worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD = worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	1.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	2.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	12.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	12.4 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	30.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	6.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	23.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	18.2 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	4.1 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	2.9 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	1.4 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	0 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.315195% CI: [-2.9, 5.6]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.029295% CI: [0.7, 11.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.940295% CI: [-5.9, 5.5]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.001995% CI: [7.3, 23.2]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.007895% CI: [4.2, 17.4]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [14.2, 30.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.052895% CI: [1, 15.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [17.6, 35.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

SCORAD: scoring index for AD combining extent, severity, subjective symptoms. Extent (A): rule of 9 was used to calculate BSA affected by AD as a % of whole BSA for each body region- head and neck 9%; upper limbs 9% each; lower limbs 18% each; anterior trunk 18%; back 18%; 1% for genitals. The score for each body region was added to determine A (0-100). Severity (B): severity of each sign (erythema; edema; oozing; excoriation; skin thickening; dryness) was assessed as none=0, mild=1, moderate=2,severe=3. The severity scores were summed to give B (0-18). Subjective symptoms (C): pruritus and sleep, each of these 2 were scored by participant/caregiver using visual analogue scale (VAS) where 0 = no itch/no sleeplessness and 10 = the worst imaginable itch/sleeplessness, higher scores=worse symptoms. Scores for itch and sleeplessness were added to give 'C' (0-20). The SCORAD for an individual was calculated: A/5 + 7\*B/2 + C; range from 0 to 103; higher values of SCORAD=worse outcome.

Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8, 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure and Number Analyzed signifies number of participants evaluable at the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (NUMBER)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	14.9 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	34.5 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	36.3 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 100 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	36.6 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	56.8 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	34.0 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	54.1 percentage of participants
PF-04965842 200 mg	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	50.7 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 12	16.4 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 4	12.9 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 8	12.5 percentage of participants
Placebo	Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12	Week 2	4.0 percentage of participants

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.015195% CI: [3.3, 18.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 2: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [21, 39]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.00195% CI: [10.2, 32.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 4: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [26.6, 49.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.000395% CI: [12.6, 34.3]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 8: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [30.7, 52.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: 0.002695% CI: [8.1, 31.1]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Comparison: Week 12: The estimate and CI for difference were calculated based on the weighted average of difference for each randomization stratum using the normal approximation of binomial proportions.p-value: <0.000195% CI: [28.3, 51.7]Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel

Secondary

Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842

Concentration versus time summary was calculated by setting concentration values below the lower limit of quantification (LLQ) = =1.00 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL) to zero.

Time frame: Day 1 of Week 4: 0 hour(Pre-dose), 0.5 hours post-dose; Day 1 of Week 12: 0.5, 4 hours post-dose

Population: Analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of PF-04965842 and had pharmacokinetic measurements. Here, 'Number Analyzed' = participants evaluable for the specified time points.

Arm	Measure	Group	Value (MEAN)	Dispersion
PF-04965842 100 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 4: 0 Hour	14.57 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 65.044
PF-04965842 100 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 4: 0.5 Hour post dose	485.3 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 393.36
PF-04965842 100 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 12: 0.5 Hour Post-dose	440.6 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 373.81
PF-04965842 100 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 12: 4 Hour Post-dose	273.1 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 176.37
PF-04965842 200 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 12: 4 Hour Post-dose	838.9 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 544.29
PF-04965842 200 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 4: 0 Hour	58.16 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 162.11
PF-04965842 200 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 12: 0.5 Hour Post-dose	933.9 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 741.09
PF-04965842 200 mg	Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842	Week 4: 0.5 Hour post dose	889.7 ng/mL	Standard Deviation 786.96

Secondary

Time to Achieve >=4 Points Improvement From Baseline in Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus

Participants were asked to assess their worst itching/pruritus due to AD over the past 24 hours on an NRS scale ranged from 0 (no itching) to 10 (worst itch imaginable), where higher scores indicated greater severity. 95% CI was based on the Brookmeyer and Crowley method.

Time frame: Baseline up to Week 12

Population: Full analysis set included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication. Here, Overall Number of Participants Analyzed signifies participants evaluable for this outcome measure.

Arm	Measure	Value (MEDIAN)
PF-04965842 100 mg	Time to Achieve >=4 Points Improvement From Baseline in Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus	84.0 days
PF-04965842 200 mg	Time to Achieve >=4 Points Improvement From Baseline in Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus	14.0 days
Placebo	Time to Achieve >=4 Points Improvement From Baseline in Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus	92.0 days

p-value: 0.0071Log Rank

p-value: <0.0001Log Rank

Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of PF-04965842 in Subjects Aged 12 Years And Older With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis

Conditions

Keywords

Brief summary

Related papers

Interventions

Sponsors

Study design

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria

Design outcomes

Primary

Secondary

Countries

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Pre-assignment details

Participants by arm

Withdrawals & dropouts

Baseline characteristics

Adverse events

Outcome results

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) Response of >=75 Percent (%) Improvement From Baseline at Week 12

Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and Greater Than or Equal to 2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 12

Change From Baseline in Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Eczema Area and Severity Index Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension 5-Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L)- Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Index Value at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in EuroQol Quality of Life 5-Dimension Youth Scale (EQ-5D-Y): Visual Analogue Scale Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (FACIT-F) at Week 12

Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Pediatric Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale (Peds-FACIT-F) at Week 12

Change From Baseline in Percentage Body Surface Area at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (PSAAD) Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set

Change From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis Total Score at Week 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set

Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Total Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis: Visual Analogue Scale of Sleep Loss at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Mental Component Summary

Change From Baseline in Short Form-36v2 (SF-36v2) Acute Summary Score at Week 12: Physical Component Summary

Percentage of Participants Achieving >=1 Point Improvement From Baseline in Pruritus and Symptoms Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants Achieving 'Clear' or 'Almost Clear' and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of 100% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8

Percentage of Participants Achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index Response of >=90% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants Achieving Investigator's Global Assessment Response of Clear (0) or Almost Clear (1) and >=2 Points Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4 and 8

Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With >=11 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <11 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Anxiety Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With >=8 Points at Baseline and Achieving Score of <8 Points in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: Depression Subscale at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4 and 12: Per Protocol Analysis Set (PPAS)

Percentage of Participants With at Least 4 Points Improvement From Baseline in the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for Severity of Pruritus at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12: Full Analysis Set (FAS)

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2.5 and Achieving >=2.5 Point Improvement From Baseline in CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 CDLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=2 and Achieving <2 DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With Baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index Score >=4 and Achieving >=4 Point Improvement From Baseline in DLQI Score at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With Percentage Body Surface Area Less Than (<) 5% at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis Response of >=75% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Percentage of Participants With Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) Response of >=50% Improvement From Baseline at Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary of PF-04965842

Time to Achieve >=4 Points Improvement From Baseline in Numerical Rating Scale for Severity of Pruritus