A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of PF-06650833, PF-06700841, and PF 06826647 in Adults With Hidradenitis Suppurativa
- Conditions
- Acne Inversa
- Interventions
- Registration Number
- NCT04092452
- Lead Sponsor
- Pfizer
- Brief Summary
This is a study with 3 kinase inhibitors (PF 06650833, PF 06700841 and PF 06826647) in participants with moderate to severe HS. The study will have a maximum duration of approximately 26 weeks. This includes an up to 6-week Screening Period, a 16 week Dosing Period and a 4 week Follow up Period.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 194
- male or female participants, between 18-75, with a diagnosis of moderate to severe Hidradenitis Suppurativa
- History of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or positive HIV serology at screening,
- Infected with hepatitis B or hepatitis C viruses.
- Have evidence of active or latent or inadequately treated infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB)
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Cohort 1 PF-06650833 PF-06650833 Cohort 2 PF-06700841 PF-6700841 Cohort 3 PF-06826647 PF-06826647 Cohort placebo Placebo placebo
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Percentage of Participants Achieving Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) at Week 16- Minimum Risk (MR) [Full Analysis Set (FAS), Non-responder Imputation (NRI)]. At week 16 HiSCR response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count relative to baseline, and no increase in abscess count, and no increase in draining fistula count. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Least Squares Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI). At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 The IHS4 score was calculated by the number of nodules, the number of abscesses, and the number of draining tunnels. IHS4 score = (number of nodules × 1) + (number of abscesses × 2) + {number of draining tunnels (fistulae/sinuses) × 4}. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome.
Plasma Concentration Versus Time Summary (Pharmacokinetic Concentration Set) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 In summary statistics for pharmacokinetic, concentration values below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) was set to zero.
Percentage of Participants Who Experienced a Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) Flare at Weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 - MR [FAS, Only Observed Data (OBS)]. At weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 HS flare was defined as at least a 25% increase in AN count with a minimum increase of 2 relative to Baseline. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
Least Squares Mean of Absolute Score in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI). At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 The IHS4 score was calculated by the number of nodules, the number of abscesses, and the number of draining tunnels. IHS4 score = (number of nodules × 1) + (number of abscesses × 2) + {number of draining tunnels (fistulae/sinuses) × 4}. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS30), on Average, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - MR (FAS With Baseline ≥3, NRI) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 The rate comparing treatment and placebo groups at each visit was analyzed using CMH test with MR weighting strategy between each of active treatment group and placebo. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. NRS30 was defined as ≥30% reduction and ≥1 unit reduction from baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) Skin Pain NRS. The range of skin pain was from 0 to 10. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome. Baseline was defined as the average of all values recorded between Day -6 and Day 1. Weekly data were average values of daily observations over 7 days. NRI (non-responder imputation) for missing values which were related to withdrawal and all other events except for COVID-19.
Least Squares Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, at Worst, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 -ANCOVA (FAS With Baseline ≥3, MI) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
Least Squares Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, on Average, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 -ANCOVA (FAS With Baseline ≥3, MI) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
Least Squares Mean of Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, at Worst, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
Least Squares Mean of Change From Baseline in PGA Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale, on Average, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - ANCOVA (FAS, MI) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 Patient Global Assessment Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the worst skin pain and the average skin pain due to HS. Ratings for the 2 items range from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). These two concepts were measured within the same instrument, but were scored separately. There was no composite score for this endpoint. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 (no skin pain) to 10 (skin pain as bad as you can imagine). Subscales were not combined. The ANCOVA model was fitted. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
Percentage of Participants Achieving HiSCR Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 - MR (FAS, NRI). At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 HiSCR response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count relative to baseline, and no increase in abscess count, and no increase in draining fistula count. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Total Abscess and Inflammatory Nodule (AN) Count of 0 or 1; 0, 1 or 2 at Week 16 - MR (FAS, NRI). At week 16 This estimand was intended to provide difference between treated and placebo in percentage of participants with a total AN count of 0 or 1, or 0, 1 or 2, respectively at week 16. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method.
Least Squares (LS) Mean of Percent Change From Baseline in AN Count at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) [FAS, Multiply Imputed (MI)]. At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model was implemented for statistical testing, which included terms of treatment group, the stratification factors, and the baseline value as the independent variable.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS30), at Worst, at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - MR (FAS With Baseline ≥3, NRI) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 The rate comparing treatment and placebo groups at each visit was analyzed using CMH test with MR weighting strategy between each of active treatment group and placebo. Confidence interval (CI) was calculated using Blyth-Still-Casella method. NRS30 was defined as ≥30% reduction and ≥1 unit reduction from baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) Skin Pain NRS. The range of skin pain was from 0 to 10. Lower IHS4 absolute scores mean a better outcome. Baseline was defined as the average of all values recorded between Day -6 and Day 1. Weekly data were average values of daily observations over 7 days. NRI (non-responder imputation) for missing values which were related to withdrawal and all other events except for COVID-19.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Erythema Response Among Participants With Baseline Erythema Score ≥2 in at Least 1 Region at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 - MR (FAS, NRI) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 Erythema response was defined as achieving erythema score of 1 or 0 in all affected anatomic regions among participants who had an erythema score of 2 or more in at least 1 anatomic region at baseline. NRI for missing values which were related to withdrawal and all other events except for COVID-19. A four-point ordinal scale ranging was used: 0 (no redness), 1 (faint but discernible pink coloration), 2 (moderate red coloration), and 3 (very red or bright red coloration).
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (All Causalities) Up to 20 weeks The treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were considered as an adverse event that started during the effective duration of treatment. All events that started on or after the first dosing day and time/start time, if collected, but before the last dose plus the lag time was flagged as TEAEs.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (Treatment Related) Up to 20 weeks The treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were considered as an adverse event that started during the effective duration of treatment. All events that started on or after the first dosing day and time/start time, if collected, but before the last dose plus the lag time was flagged as TEAEs.
Number of Participants With Incidence of Post-baseline Vital Signs of Clinical Concern - Increase From Baseline (Safety Analysis Set) Up to 20 weeks The vital signs were measured included temperature (Oral, Tympanic, Axillary or Temporal), pulse rate (beats/min) and blood pressure (mmHg).
Number of Participants With Incidence of Laboratory Test Abnormalities (Without Regard to Baseline Abnormality) (Safety Analysis Set) Up to 20 weeks Laboratory test abnormalities included hematology, chemistry, urinalysis and biomarker.
Number of Participants With Incidence of Post-baseline Electrocardiogram (ECG) Values of Clinical Concern (Safety Analysis Set) Up to 20 weeks ECG parameters included QT interval, QTc interval, PR interval, and QRS complex.
Least Squares Mean of Absolute Score in Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) Symptom Items up to Week 16 - Mixed Effect Model Repeated Measurement (MMRM) (FAS, OBS) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Symptom Items were 5 single items that assessed patient self-reported symptoms related to HS. The participants were asked to rate each symptom on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, with 0 indicating no symptom experience and 10 indicating the worst possible symptom. The symptoms assessed include: pain, tenderness, swelling, tiredness, and bother of lesion appearance. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 indicating no symptom experience and 10 indicating the worst possible symptom. These concepts were scored separately, and were not combined into a composite score. When using mixed effect model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis, only observed data were used and missing data were not imputed.
Least Squares Mean of Change From Baseline in Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) Symptom Items up to Week 16 - MMRM (FAS, OBS) At weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16 The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Symptom Items were 5 single items that assessed patient self-reported symptoms related to HS. The participants were asked to rate each symptom on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale, with 0 indicating no symptom experience and 10 indicating the worst possible symptom. The symptoms assessed include: pain, tenderness, swelling, tiredness, and bother of lesion appearance. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes, ranging from 0 indicating no symptom experience and 10 indicating the worst possible symptom. These concepts were scored separately, and were not combined into a composite score. When using mixed effect model repeated measurement (MMRM) analysis, only observed data were used and missing data were not imputed.
Least Squares Mean of Absolute Score in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) Total Score up to Week 16 - MMRM (FAS, OBS) At weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is a general dermatology questionnaire that consists of 10 items that assess patient health-related quality of life (daily activities, personal relationships, symptoms and feelings, leisure, work and school, and treatment) over the last week. Scoring for each item is on a qualitative 0 to 3 scale, with options of "Not at all", "A little", "A lot", "Very much". The scores are added up to a total composite score with the range from the minimum score of 0 to the maximum score of 30. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes.
Least Squares Mean of Change From Baseline in DLQI Total Score up to Week 16 - MMRM (FAS, OBS) At weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is a general dermatology questionnaire that consists of 10 items that assess patient health-related quality of life (daily activities, personal relationships, symptoms and feelings, leisure, work and school, and treatment) over the last week. Scoring for each item is on a qualitative 0 to 3 scale, with options of "Not at all", "A little", "A lot", "Very much". The scores are added up to a total composite score with the range from the minimum score of 0 to the maximum score of 30. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes. The assessments examined a change from baseline in total score, where negative value means improvement in DLQI.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DLQI Total Score of 0 or 1 up to Week 16 - MR (FAS With Baseline >1, NRI) At weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is a general dermatology questionnaire that consists of 10 items that assess patient health-related quality of life (daily activities, personal relationships, symptoms and feelings, leisure, work and school, and treatment) over the last week. Scoring for each item is on a qualitative 0 to 3 scale, with options of "Not at all", "A little", "A lot", "Very much". The scores are added up to a total composite score with the range from the minimum score of 0 to the maximum score of 30. The higher the score, the worse the outcomes. The assessments examined the percentage of patients with complete resolution of dermatology specific quality of life impact, as assessed by a total score of ≤ 1 (range: 0 - 30), where higher percentage indicates better improvement in DLQI.
Trial Locations
- Locations (75)
Boston Medical Center
🇺🇸Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Dermatology Associates of Seattle
🇺🇸Seattle, Washington, United States
Dawes Fretzin Clinical Research Group, LLC
🇺🇸Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
University of Miami Hospital
🇺🇸Miami, Florida, United States
Pacific Clinical Trials
🇺🇸Long Beach, California, United States
Mayo Clinic
🇺🇸Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Paddington Testing Company, Inc
🇺🇸Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Alpha Recherche Clinique
🇨🇦Quebec, Canada
Austin Institute for Clinical Research, Inc.
🇺🇸Pflugerville, Texas, United States
Bellevue Dermatology Clinical Research Center
🇺🇸Bellevue, Washington, United States
J Woodson Clinical Studies Group
🇺🇸Henderson, Nevada, United States
Premier Specialists Pty Ltd
🇦🇺Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia
NorthShore University HealthSystem Dermatology Clinic
🇺🇸Skokie, Illinois, United States
Ds Research
🇺🇸Clarksville, Indiana, United States
Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California
🇺🇸Los Angeles, California, United States
Boston University General Clinical Research Unit
🇺🇸Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Vital Prospects Clinical Research Institute
🇺🇸Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
🇺🇸Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Arlington Research Center
🇺🇸Arlington, Texas, United States
Revival Research Institute, LLC
🇺🇸Troy, Michigan, United States
Centre de Recherche Saint-Louis
🇨🇦Quebec, Canada
MedaPhase Inc.
🇺🇸Newnan, Georgia, United States
MediSearch Clinical Trials
🇺🇸Saint Joseph, Missouri, United States
Advanced Medical Research PC
🇺🇸Sandy Springs, Georgia, United States
Woden Dermatology
🇦🇺Phillip, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Holdsworth House Medical Practice
🇦🇺Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
The Centre for Dermatology
🇨🇦Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada
DS Research
🇺🇸Louisville, Kentucky, United States
Sinclair Dermatology
🇦🇺East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Georgia Skin Cancer and Aesthetic Dermatology
🇺🇸Watkinsville, Georgia, United States
Saint Louis University - Department of Dermatology
🇺🇸Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
Dermatology and Skin Cancer Consultants
🇺🇸Jackson, Tennessee, United States
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
🇺🇸New York, New York, United States
Penn State Health Radiology - University Physician Center
🇺🇸Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
SimcoDerm Medical and Surgical Dermatology Center
🇨🇦Barrie, Ontario, Canada
UCSF Dermatology Clinic
🇺🇸San Francisco, California, United States
UCSF Psoriasis and Skin Treatment Center
🇺🇸San Francisco, California, United States
Clinical Research Unit
🇺🇸Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
University of Minnesota Department of Dermatology
🇺🇸Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
Lillihei Clinical Research Unit
🇺🇸Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
The University Of Alabama At Birmingham
🇺🇸Birmingham, Alabama, United States
The University of Alabama at Birmingham Investigation Drug Services Pharmacy
🇺🇸Birmingham, Alabama, United States
The University of Alabama at Birmingham Hospital Outreach Lab
🇺🇸Birmingham, Alabama, United States
The University of Alabama at Birmingham
🇺🇸Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Wayne State University / Integrative Biosciences Center
🇺🇸Detroit, Michigan, United States
Diex Recherche Sherbrooke Inc.
🇨🇦Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Alliance Clinical Research of Tampa
🇺🇸Tampa, Florida, United States
Manna Research (London)
🇨🇦London, Ontario, Canada
Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
🇺🇸Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States
DermEffects
🇨🇦London, Ontario, Canada
Bellevue Dermatology Clinic
🇺🇸Bellevue, Washington, United States
SKiN Centre for Dermatology
🇨🇦Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
Skin Specialists PC
🇺🇸Omaha, Nebraska, United States
Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center
🇺🇸Richmond, Virginia, United States
Veracity Clinical Research
🇦🇺Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
Center for Dermatology Clinical Research, Inc.
🇺🇸Fremont, California, United States
University of California San Francisco
🇺🇸San Francisco, California, United States
Clinical Science Institute
🇺🇸Santa Monica, California, United States
New England Research Associates, LLC
🇺🇸Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States
Total Dermatology Care Center
🇺🇸Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Jacksonville Center for Clinical Research
🇺🇸Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Olympian Clinical Research Largo Office
🇺🇸Largo, Florida, United States
Dermatology Physicians of Connecticut
🇺🇸Shelton, Connecticut, United States
MidState Skin Institute
🇺🇸Ocala, Florida, United States
Park Avenue Dermatology
🇺🇸Orange Park, Florida, United States
Leavitt Medical Associates of Florida d/b/a Ameriderm Research
🇺🇸Ormond Beach, Florida, United States
Renstar Medical Research
🇺🇸Ocala, Florida, United States
Riverchase Dermatology and Cosmetic Surgery
🇺🇸Pembroke Pines, Florida, United States
ForCare Clinical Research
🇺🇸Tampa, Florida, United States
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital
🇺🇸Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
Clinical Research Solutions
🇺🇸Jackson, Tennessee, United States
Skin Health Institute Inc.
🇦🇺Carlton, Victoria, Australia
Tory Sullivan MD PA
🇺🇸North Miami Beach, Florida, United States
University of Utah MidValley Dermatology
🇺🇸Murray, Utah, United States
Thomas Jefferson University
🇺🇸Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States