search
Back to results

Intravenous Mepolizumab In Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Primary Purpose

Oesophagitis, Eosinophilic

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 2
Locations
International
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
mepolizumab
Sponsored by
GlaxoSmithKline
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Oesophagitis, Eosinophilic focused on measuring eosinophilic, mepolizumab, esophagitis

Eligibility Criteria

2 Years - 17 Years (Child)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria: A subject will be eligible for inclusion in this study only if all of the following criteria apply. Inclusion criteria pertain to all subjects in both cohorts (treatment and observational) unless otherwise stated. The subject signs and dates a written assent form (age appropriate) and the parent/guardian signs and dates a written informed consent form prior to the initiation of any study-related activities, including discontinuation of any prohibited medications. Male or female subjects aged 2 to 17 years (from 2nd birthday up to and not including 18th birthday), who weigh <=84.9kg (males)/ <= 72.5 (females) and who have a BMI between 5 and 85% for age, who speak, read and write English as age appropriate and/or parent/guardian. NOTE: If subject is within weight requirements but close to the upper or lower limits at screening and the investigator anticipates that during the study the subject's weight will change a become outside the weight requirements, the subject should be excluded from the study. To be eligible for entry in the treatment group of the study, a female subject is eligible to enter the study if she is: not pregnant or nursing; of non-childbearing potential. Non-childbearing potential is defined as a pre-menarcheal female who has not yet entered puberty as evidenced by lack of breast development (palpable glandular breast tissue); or a female who has documentation (medical report verification) of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy; of childbearing potential. These females subjects must have a negative urine pregnancy test at the screening visit, and agree to consistent and correct use of one of the acceptable methods of birth control from at least the commencement of their last normal period prior to the first dose of study medication and to continue until the first normal period after treatment or after the Week 24 Follow-up visit, whichever is longest. The subject has a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis and current evidence on biopsy of isolated eosinophilic esophagitis defined as: Peak esophageal eosinophil counts (highest count of eosinophils per HPF in at least one of all esophageal sites biopsied) of 20 or more eosinophils in a minimum of one HPF at 400X magnification on histology of esophageal biopsies from distal and mid-esophagus within two weeks of commencing study medication, as determined by the central histopathologist. Inadequate response to or intolerant of therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis The individual investigators will apply their clinical judgment to define whether a clinical response to therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis is inadequate. As guidance, inadequate response might consist of persistence under current or recent prior therapy, of symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis such as eosinophilic esophagitis-related pain in stomach, chest or throat; regurgitation; vomiting; pain or difficulties associated with drinking fluids or nutritional supplements; or pain or difficulties associated with eating. An inadequate response might also consist of persistent eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus, in the presence or in the absence of eosinophilic esophagitis-related symptoms. Similarly, the individual investigators will apply their clinical judgment to define whether a patient is intolerant to therapy. For guidance, intolerance to therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis may consist of undesirable side-effects of long-term therapy; or side-effects of long-term therapy that are difficult to manage; or marked non-compliance to therapy or rejection of therapy by the individual patient, or by the parent/guardian, which in the opinion of the investigator interferes with the patient's optimal disease management. The criteria used by the investigator to define inadequate response to or intolerance of therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis will be collected in the CRF. Exclusion Criteria: A subject will not be eligible for inclusion in this study if any of the following criteria apply. Exclusion criteria pertain to all subjects in both cohorts (treatment and observational) unless otherwise stated. Current evidence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal enteropathy (EGID), other than eosinophilic esophagitis. Evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, or other causes of esophagitis which in the investigator's opinion is the predominant cause of the subject's esophageal eosinophilia so that the investigator's opinion is allowed. Current presence, or history of (anytime in the past): hypereosinophilic syndromes, collagen vascular disease, vasculitis, allergic drug reaction as the cause of the peripheral eosinophilia, graft-versus host disease, chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disorders (ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, chronic granulomatous disease). Current evidence, or history of celiac disease. Current evidence of active H. pylori infection. Abnormal 12-lead ECG at Screening which is clinically significant in the opinion of the investigator. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Use or administration of any of the prohibited medications from Screening and throughout completion of Week 34 follow-up. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Failure to remain on a stable dose of one (or more) permitted medication(s) for at least 1 month prior to the Screening visit and throughout completion of Week 24 follow-up assessments. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Failure to remain on stable elemental diet or dietary manipulations for at least 3 months prior to the Screening Visit and throughout completion of Week 34 follow-up assessments. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Known history of allergic reaction to previous antibody therapy. Any previous treatment with anti-hIL-5, anti-IgE monoclonal antibody or other biological agents. Use of an investigational drug within 30 days of entering the study. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Exhibits evidence of renal disease or serum creatinine > 1.5 times upper limit of normal range (ULN). Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Exhibits evidence of hepatic disease, impairment or abnormal liver function test i.e. AST, ALT >1.5 times ULN, bilirubin >1.5 times ULN. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Known evidence of the following infections/infestations: HIV, Hepatitis B or C, Bacterial infection, Parasitic infestation. History or suspicion of current drug abuse and alcohol abuse within the last 6 months.

Sites / Locations

  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site
  • GSK Investigational Site

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm 3

Arm Type

Experimental

Experimental

Experimental

Arm Label

Mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg

Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg

Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg

Arm Description

Participants received mepolizumab 0.55 milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg) by intravenous (IV) infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8.

Participants received mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg by IV infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8.

Participants received mepolizumab 10 mg/kg by IV infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Number of Participants With Any Adverse Events (AE), Any Serious Adverse Event (SAE) and Drug-related AE During Treatment Phase (TP) and Follow-up Phase (FP)
An AE is defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product. A serious adverse event is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that, at any dose that Results in death, life-threatening; requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; results in disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect. Drug-related AE's were considered to have a reasonable possibility of being related to treatment by the investigator. AE, SAE and drug-related AEs are summarized by TP and FP.
Number of Participants With Indicated Biochemistry Parameters Falling Outside of Reference Range (RR) in Any Vist Post-Basline During Study Period.
Blood samples were collected at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 to estimate the following biochemistry parameters: alanine amino transferase (ALT), aspartate amino transferase (AST), albumin (Ab), total protein (ToP), creatinine (Cr), total bilirubin (TB), calcium (Ca), bicarbonate (Bi), chloride (Cl), glucose (Glu), potassium (Pot), and sodium (Sod). Laboratory abnormalities outside the reference range (high and low values) at any time post baseline were presented. Any time post Baseline = all visits (including scheduled and unscheduled). If participant had given both high and low value at least once then participant is counted under both high and low category for this visit.
Number of Participants With Indicated Hematology Parameters Falling Outside of Reference Range (RR) in Any Vist Post-Basline During the Study Period.
Blood samples were collected pre-infusion at Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8; and 24h and 72h post-infusion at Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8 time points and at Weeks 2, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, and 34 to estimate the following hematology parameters: basophils (Bas), percentage of basophils (% Bas), lymphocytes (Lym), percentage of Lym (% Lym), monocytes (Mon), percentage of Mon (% Mon), platelet count (PC), total neutrophils (TN), percentage of TN (% TN), white blood cell count (WBC), hematocrit (He), hemoglobin (Hg), and red blood cell count (RBC). Laboratory abnormalities outside the reference range (high and low values) at any time post baseline were presented. Any time post Baseline = all visits (including scheduled and unscheduled). If participant had given both high and low value at least once then participant is counted under both high and low category for this visit.
Number of Participants With the Indicated Change From Baseline in ECG Findings at Any Time Post-Baseline
12-lead ECG assessments were obtained at the following time points: screening, and Weeks 4, 8 and 12.. Overall ECG findings were summarized using the worst case findings without regard to visits ie. "any time post Baseline". Change from Baseline in ECG findings were categorized as clinically significant change from Baseline; no clinically significant change from Baseline and not applicable.
Change From Baseline in Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) at the Indicated Time Points
SBP and DBP measurements were obtained at the following time points: screening, pre-infusion, 10 minutes (m), 30m, 1 hour (h), 2h post-infusion on Day 1, Week 4, Week 8; and Weeks 12, 16, 20 and 24. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Change From Baseline in Heart Rate at the Indicated Time Points
Heart rate measurements were obtained at the following time points: Screening, pre-infusion, 10m, 30m, 1h, 2h post-infusion on Day 1, Week 4, Week 8; and Weeks 12, 16, 20 and 24. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Change From Baseline in Temperature at the Indicated Time Points
Temperature measurements were obtained at the following time points: Screening, Day 1, and Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Number of Participants With Positive and Negative Anti-mepolizumab Antibody Results at Any Visit and Repeat Visit.
Blood samples for testing anti-mepolizumab antibodies were collected on Day 1, Week 4 and 8 Infusion Visit (before the IV infusion) and at Week 12, 24 and 34 Week follow-up visits. The presence of anti-human mepolizumab antibodies was assessed using an immunoelectrochemiluminescent (ECL) assay. To address transient positive results, an assessment of repeated results were made. For any visit category: results were considered as positive if it was positive at any visit during the study, and results were considered as negative if it were negative at all visits during the study. For repeat visit category: results were considered as postive if the result was positive at >1 visit, and results were considered as negative if the result was negative at all visits or was positive at only one visit.
Number of Participants Achieving a Reduction in Peak Esophageal Eosinophil Count to < 5 Cells Per High Power Field (HPF) at Week 12
A responder was defined as a participant achieving a reduction in esophageal eosinophils to <5 cells per HPF as the highest count of eosinophils per HPF in all the esophageal sites biopsied at Week 12, confirmed by biopsy at Week 12 or at an early withdrawal visit prior to Week 12. A worst case (WC) approach was considered, if a particiapant withdrew prematurely : If a particiapnt dropped out of the study without having a biopsy taken, due to lack of efficacy or an adverse event, their response was imputed as not achieved. Participants who withdrew, without a biopsy, for other reasons (e.g. lost to follow-up) were considered non-evaluable for the primary analysis. For participants who withdrew early from the study and had a biopsy, the biopsy was used to determine their response.
Central (V1), Periperial (V2) and Steady-State (Vss) Volume of Distribution of Mepolizumab
Volume of distribution is defined as the theoretical volume in which the total amount of drug is uniformly distributed to produce the desired plasma concentration of a drug. Central volume of distribution is a hypothetical volume into which a drug initially distributes upon administration. Peripheral volume of distribution is the sum of all tissue spaces outside the central compartment. Steady state volume of distribution (Vss) is the apparent volume of distribution at steady-state. Blood samples were obtained at pre-infusion and 5m, 2h, 24h, 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8; and Weeks 2, 6 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 from each participant to estimate central (V1) and periperial (V2) and Steady State (Vss) volume of distribution of mepolizumab.
Plasma Clearance (CL) of Mepolizumab
Clearance is defined as the removal of drug from a volume of plasma in a given unit of time (drug loss from the body). Blood samples were obtained at pre-infusion and 5m, 2h, 24h, 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8; and Weeks 2, 6 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 from each participant to estimate plasma clearance of mepolizumab.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Change From Baseline in Pain in Stomach Severity Scores
Par.and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A severity score of 0 was assigned for days on which pain in stomach was not experienced. If pain in stomach was reported, severity of pain was assessed as: 1=hurt a little, 2=hurt somewhat, 3=hurt quite a bit, and 4=hurt a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 0) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as the Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction
Change From Baseline in Pain in Chest/Throat Severity Scores
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A severity score of 0 was assigned for days on which pain in chest/throat was not experienced. If pain in chest/throat was reported, severity of pain was assessed as: 1=hurt a little, 2=hurt somewhat, 3=hurt quite a bit, and 4=hurt a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 0) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as the Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Pain in Stomach
The percentage of days with the symptom of pain in stomach during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Pain in Chest/Throat
The percentage of days with the symptom of pain in chest/throat during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline in Regurgitation Bothersome Scores
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 0 was assigned for days on which the symptom regurgitation was not experienced. The days regurgitation experienced, the amount the symptom bothered the Par. was assessed as 1=not bothered at all, 2=bothered a little, 3=somewhat bothered, 4=bothered quite a bit, 5=bothered a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 0) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group interactions
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Regurgitation Bothersome Scores
The percentage of days with the symptom of pain in regurgitation bothersome during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline in Frequency of Vomiting
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A participant vomiting any time was counted as one episode of vomiting, irrespective of how close they are to each other. The daily frequency of vomiting was calculated as the total number of times the participant vomited during the interval divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Vomiting
The percentage of days with the symptom of vomiting during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline in Daily Degree of Difficulty With Drinking
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 6 was assigned days the participant did not drink. The amount of difficulty with drinking was assessed as 1=no difficulty, 2=a little difficulty, 3=some difficulty, 4=quite a bit of difficulty, 5=a whole lot of difficulty. The average difficulty for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the drinking difficulty scores for that interval (including days assigned as 6) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Change From Baseline in Pain With Drinking Severity Scores
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 6 was assigned the day participant did not drink. The severity of pain was assessed as: 1=didn't hurt at all, 2=hurt a little, 3=hurt somewhat, 4=hurt quite a bit, and 5=hurt a whole lot. The average difficulty and pain severity scores was calculated as the sum of the respective scores for that interval divided by the number of days in the interval. . Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days on Which the Participant Drank
The percentage of days with the symptom of difficulty and pain when participant drank during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline in Difficulty With Eating Solid Foods
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP and FP. A score of 6 was assigned for that symptom when Par. did not eat solid foods. When Par.eat solid foods, the amount of difficulty was assessed as 1=no difficulty, 2=a little difficulty, 3=some difficulty, 4=quite a bit of difficulty, 5=a whole lot of difficulty. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 6) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interactions.
Change in Baseline in Pain With Eating Solid Foods Severity Scores
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 6 was assigned for that symptom when Par. did not eat. The severity of pain was assessed when Par. eats food as: 1=didn't hurt at all, 2=hurt a little, 3=hurt somewhat, 4=hurt quite a bit, and 5=hurt a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 6) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Change From Baseline in the Percentage of Days Participants Ate Solid Foods
The percentage of days with the symptom of difficulty and pain when eating solid foods during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Change From Baseline in Feeling of Something Stuck in Throat Bothersome Scores (for Par. 8-17 Years Only)
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of the feeling like something is stuck in throat on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 0 was assigned for days on which the symptom of feeling of something stuck was not experienced. On days that feeling of something stuck in the throat was experienced, the amount the symptom bothered the Par. was assessed as 1=not bothered at all, 2=bothered a little, 3=somewhat bothered, 4=bothered quite a bit, 5=bothered a whole lot. Average bothersome score was calculated as the sum of the respective scores for that interval divided by the number of days. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age interaction.
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Feeling of Something Stuck in Throat (for Par. 8-17 Years)
The percentage of days with feeling of something stuck in throat during each analysis period (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Number of Participants With Maintenance of Response
Participants who achieved a response of <5 esophageal eosinophils/HPF at Week 12 by worst case analysis, were evaluated for maintenance of response of <20 cells/HPF at Week 24. Response categories were defined as: non-responder (did not respond at Week 12 or Week 24); delayed responder (did not respond at Week 12 but responded at Week 24); relapsed (responded at Week 12 but not at Week 24); maintained (responded at Week 12 and Week 24). The following assumptions were made for worst case: if a Participant dropped out of the study due to lack of efficacy or an adverse event and had a missing response, their response was imputed as not achieved (i.e. failure). However for Participants withdrawn for other reasons (e.g. lost to follow-up) with a missing response (i.e. did not have the biopsy) the response was made as missing and not imputed.
Mean Change From Baseline in Peak Esophageal Eosinophil Counts at Weeks 12 and 24
Participants underwent an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with biopsies at Screening and at Weeks 12 and 24. Peak esophageal eosinophils were calculated as the maximum count across all esophageal biopsies at each time point. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Change From Baseline in Mean Esophageal Eosinophil Counts at Weeks 12 and 24
Participants underwent an EGD with biopsies at Screening and at Weeks 12 and 24. Mean esophageal eosinophils were calculated as the mean number across all esophageal biopsies at each time point. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Absolute Blood Eosinophils Count at the Indicated Time Points
Blood samples were obtained at Screening, pre-infusion and 24h and 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4 and 8; and at Week 2, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 visits or Early Withdrawal Visit to estimate blood eosinophil count.
Plasma Concentration of Mepolizumab
Blood samples were obtained at pre-infusion and 5m, 2h, 24h, 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8; and Weeks 2, 6 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 to estimate the plasma concentration of mepolizumab. Only those participants available at specified time points are analyzed (represented as n=X,X,X in the category titles).

Full Information

First Posted
July 27, 2006
Last Updated
June 25, 2018
Sponsor
GlaxoSmithKline
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT00358449
Brief Title
Intravenous Mepolizumab In Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Official Title
A Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel Group Clinical Trial to Assess Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of Intravenous Mepolizumab (SB240563)(0.55mg/kg, 2.5mg/kg or 10mg/kg) in Pediatric Subjects With Eosinophilic Esophagitis, Aged 2 to 17 Years (Study MEE103219)
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
June 2018
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
September 11, 2006 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
November 25, 2008 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
November 25, 2008 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
GlaxoSmithKline

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
Yes
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
This study will evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of intravenous mepolizumab in pediatric subjects with eosinophilic esophagitis.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Oesophagitis, Eosinophilic
Keywords
eosinophilic, mepolizumab, esophagitis

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 2
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantInvestigator
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
84 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants received mepolizumab 0.55 milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg) by intravenous (IV) infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8.
Arm Title
Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants received mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg by IV infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8.
Arm Title
Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants received mepolizumab 10 mg/kg by IV infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8.
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
mepolizumab
Intervention Description
Participants received mepolizumab 0.55 milligrams (mg)/kilogram (kg), 2.5 mg/kg , or 10 mg/kg by intravenous (IV) infusion for 30 minutes on Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Number of Participants With Any Adverse Events (AE), Any Serious Adverse Event (SAE) and Drug-related AE During Treatment Phase (TP) and Follow-up Phase (FP)
Description
An AE is defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product. A serious adverse event is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that, at any dose that Results in death, life-threatening; requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; results in disability/incapacity; a congenital anomaly/birth defect. Drug-related AE's were considered to have a reasonable possibility of being related to treatment by the investigator. AE, SAE and drug-related AEs are summarized by TP and FP.
Time Frame
From first dose of study treatment (Day 1) up to Follow-up Phase (Week 24)
Title
Number of Participants With Indicated Biochemistry Parameters Falling Outside of Reference Range (RR) in Any Vist Post-Basline During Study Period.
Description
Blood samples were collected at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 to estimate the following biochemistry parameters: alanine amino transferase (ALT), aspartate amino transferase (AST), albumin (Ab), total protein (ToP), creatinine (Cr), total bilirubin (TB), calcium (Ca), bicarbonate (Bi), chloride (Cl), glucose (Glu), potassium (Pot), and sodium (Sod). Laboratory abnormalities outside the reference range (high and low values) at any time post baseline were presented. Any time post Baseline = all visits (including scheduled and unscheduled). If participant had given both high and low value at least once then participant is counted under both high and low category for this visit.
Time Frame
From first dose of study treatment (Day 1) up to Follow-up Phase (Week 24)
Title
Number of Participants With Indicated Hematology Parameters Falling Outside of Reference Range (RR) in Any Vist Post-Basline During the Study Period.
Description
Blood samples were collected pre-infusion at Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8; and 24h and 72h post-infusion at Day 1, Week 4 and Week 8 time points and at Weeks 2, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, and 34 to estimate the following hematology parameters: basophils (Bas), percentage of basophils (% Bas), lymphocytes (Lym), percentage of Lym (% Lym), monocytes (Mon), percentage of Mon (% Mon), platelet count (PC), total neutrophils (TN), percentage of TN (% TN), white blood cell count (WBC), hematocrit (He), hemoglobin (Hg), and red blood cell count (RBC). Laboratory abnormalities outside the reference range (high and low values) at any time post baseline were presented. Any time post Baseline = all visits (including scheduled and unscheduled). If participant had given both high and low value at least once then participant is counted under both high and low category for this visit.
Time Frame
From first dose of study treatment (Day 1) up to Long-term Follow-up Phase (Week 34)
Title
Number of Participants With the Indicated Change From Baseline in ECG Findings at Any Time Post-Baseline
Description
12-lead ECG assessments were obtained at the following time points: screening, and Weeks 4, 8 and 12.. Overall ECG findings were summarized using the worst case findings without regard to visits ie. "any time post Baseline". Change from Baseline in ECG findings were categorized as clinically significant change from Baseline; no clinically significant change from Baseline and not applicable.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 4, 8 and 12
Title
Change From Baseline in Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) at the Indicated Time Points
Description
SBP and DBP measurements were obtained at the following time points: screening, pre-infusion, 10 minutes (m), 30m, 1 hour (h), 2h post-infusion on Day 1, Week 4, Week 8; and Weeks 12, 16, 20 and 24. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Time Frame
Screening, Day 1, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Title
Change From Baseline in Heart Rate at the Indicated Time Points
Description
Heart rate measurements were obtained at the following time points: Screening, pre-infusion, 10m, 30m, 1h, 2h post-infusion on Day 1, Week 4, Week 8; and Weeks 12, 16, 20 and 24. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Time Frame
Screening, Day 1, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24
Title
Change From Baseline in Temperature at the Indicated Time Points
Description
Temperature measurements were obtained at the following time points: Screening, Day 1, and Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Time Frame
Screening, Day 1, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
Title
Number of Participants With Positive and Negative Anti-mepolizumab Antibody Results at Any Visit and Repeat Visit.
Description
Blood samples for testing anti-mepolizumab antibodies were collected on Day 1, Week 4 and 8 Infusion Visit (before the IV infusion) and at Week 12, 24 and 34 Week follow-up visits. The presence of anti-human mepolizumab antibodies was assessed using an immunoelectrochemiluminescent (ECL) assay. To address transient positive results, an assessment of repeated results were made. For any visit category: results were considered as positive if it was positive at any visit during the study, and results were considered as negative if it were negative at all visits during the study. For repeat visit category: results were considered as postive if the result was positive at >1 visit, and results were considered as negative if the result was negative at all visits or was positive at only one visit.
Time Frame
Day 1, Weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, and 34
Title
Number of Participants Achieving a Reduction in Peak Esophageal Eosinophil Count to < 5 Cells Per High Power Field (HPF) at Week 12
Description
A responder was defined as a participant achieving a reduction in esophageal eosinophils to <5 cells per HPF as the highest count of eosinophils per HPF in all the esophageal sites biopsied at Week 12, confirmed by biopsy at Week 12 or at an early withdrawal visit prior to Week 12. A worst case (WC) approach was considered, if a particiapant withdrew prematurely : If a particiapnt dropped out of the study without having a biopsy taken, due to lack of efficacy or an adverse event, their response was imputed as not achieved. Participants who withdrew, without a biopsy, for other reasons (e.g. lost to follow-up) were considered non-evaluable for the primary analysis. For participants who withdrew early from the study and had a biopsy, the biopsy was used to determine their response.
Time Frame
Week 12
Title
Central (V1), Periperial (V2) and Steady-State (Vss) Volume of Distribution of Mepolizumab
Description
Volume of distribution is defined as the theoretical volume in which the total amount of drug is uniformly distributed to produce the desired plasma concentration of a drug. Central volume of distribution is a hypothetical volume into which a drug initially distributes upon administration. Peripheral volume of distribution is the sum of all tissue spaces outside the central compartment. Steady state volume of distribution (Vss) is the apparent volume of distribution at steady-state. Blood samples were obtained at pre-infusion and 5m, 2h, 24h, 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8; and Weeks 2, 6 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 from each participant to estimate central (V1) and periperial (V2) and Steady State (Vss) volume of distribution of mepolizumab.
Time Frame
Day 1, Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, and 34
Title
Plasma Clearance (CL) of Mepolizumab
Description
Clearance is defined as the removal of drug from a volume of plasma in a given unit of time (drug loss from the body). Blood samples were obtained at pre-infusion and 5m, 2h, 24h, 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8; and Weeks 2, 6 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 from each participant to estimate plasma clearance of mepolizumab.
Time Frame
Day 1, Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, and 34
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Change From Baseline in Pain in Stomach Severity Scores
Description
Par.and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A severity score of 0 was assigned for days on which pain in stomach was not experienced. If pain in stomach was reported, severity of pain was assessed as: 1=hurt a little, 2=hurt somewhat, 3=hurt quite a bit, and 4=hurt a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 0) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as the Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Pain in Chest/Throat Severity Scores
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A severity score of 0 was assigned for days on which pain in chest/throat was not experienced. If pain in chest/throat was reported, severity of pain was assessed as: 1=hurt a little, 2=hurt somewhat, 3=hurt quite a bit, and 4=hurt a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 0) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as the Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Pain in Stomach
Description
The percentage of days with the symptom of pain in stomach during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Pain in Chest/Throat
Description
The percentage of days with the symptom of pain in chest/throat during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Regurgitation Bothersome Scores
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 0 was assigned for days on which the symptom regurgitation was not experienced. The days regurgitation experienced, the amount the symptom bothered the Par. was assessed as 1=not bothered at all, 2=bothered a little, 3=somewhat bothered, 4=bothered quite a bit, 5=bothered a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 0) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group interactions
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Regurgitation Bothersome Scores
Description
The percentage of days with the symptom of pain in regurgitation bothersome during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Frequency of Vomiting
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A participant vomiting any time was counted as one episode of vomiting, irrespective of how close they are to each other. The daily frequency of vomiting was calculated as the total number of times the participant vomited during the interval divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Vomiting
Description
The percentage of days with the symptom of vomiting during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Daily Degree of Difficulty With Drinking
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 6 was assigned days the participant did not drink. The amount of difficulty with drinking was assessed as 1=no difficulty, 2=a little difficulty, 3=some difficulty, 4=quite a bit of difficulty, 5=a whole lot of difficulty. The average difficulty for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the drinking difficulty scores for that interval (including days assigned as 6) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Pain With Drinking Severity Scores
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 6 was assigned the day participant did not drink. The severity of pain was assessed as: 1=didn't hurt at all, 2=hurt a little, 3=hurt somewhat, 4=hurt quite a bit, and 5=hurt a whole lot. The average difficulty and pain severity scores was calculated as the sum of the respective scores for that interval divided by the number of days in the interval. . Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days on Which the Participant Drank
Description
The percentage of days with the symptom of difficulty and pain when participant drank during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Difficulty With Eating Solid Foods
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP and FP. A score of 6 was assigned for that symptom when Par. did not eat solid foods. When Par.eat solid foods, the amount of difficulty was assessed as 1=no difficulty, 2=a little difficulty, 3=some difficulty, 4=quite a bit of difficulty, 5=a whole lot of difficulty. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 6) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interactions.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change in Baseline in Pain With Eating Solid Foods Severity Scores
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 6 was assigned for that symptom when Par. did not eat. The severity of pain was assessed when Par. eats food as: 1=didn't hurt at all, 2=hurt a little, 3=hurt somewhat, 4=hurt quite a bit, and 5=hurt a whole lot. The average pain severity for the interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12, Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the sum of the pain severity scores for that interval (including days assigned as 6) divided by the number of days in the interval. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in the Percentage of Days Participants Ate Solid Foods
Description
The percentage of days with the symptom of difficulty and pain when eating solid foods during each analysis interval (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Feeling of Something Stuck in Throat Bothersome Scores (for Par. 8-17 Years Only)
Description
Par. and/or parent/guardian recorded daily symptoms of the feeling like something is stuck in throat on a hand held personal digital assistant (electronic diary) during the Screening Phase, TP, and FP. A score of 0 was assigned for days on which the symptom of feeling of something stuck was not experienced. On days that feeling of something stuck in the throat was experienced, the amount the symptom bothered the Par. was assessed as 1=not bothered at all, 2=bothered a little, 3=somewhat bothered, 4=bothered quite a bit, 5=bothered a whole lot. Average bothersome score was calculated as the sum of the respective scores for that interval divided by the number of days. Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA models with terms for the relevant Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age interaction.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Change From Baseline in Percentage of Days With Feeling of Something Stuck in Throat (for Par. 8-17 Years)
Description
The percentage of days with feeling of something stuck in throat during each analysis period (Baseline, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24) was calculated as the number of days the symptom was experienced divided by the number of days in the analysis interval, and presented as a percentage (ie, the proportion X 100%). Screening phase was considered as Baseline interval. Change from Baseline for each analysis interval was calculated as the value for that interval minus the value for the Baseline interval. Analysis was performed using parametric ANCOVA model with terms for Baseline score, treatment group, age group and treatment by age group interaction. The OC datasets with incorrect questionnaires excluded were used for the analysis.
Time Frame
Screening, Weeks 9-12 and Weeks 21-24
Title
Number of Participants With Maintenance of Response
Description
Participants who achieved a response of <5 esophageal eosinophils/HPF at Week 12 by worst case analysis, were evaluated for maintenance of response of <20 cells/HPF at Week 24. Response categories were defined as: non-responder (did not respond at Week 12 or Week 24); delayed responder (did not respond at Week 12 but responded at Week 24); relapsed (responded at Week 12 but not at Week 24); maintained (responded at Week 12 and Week 24). The following assumptions were made for worst case: if a Participant dropped out of the study due to lack of efficacy or an adverse event and had a missing response, their response was imputed as not achieved (i.e. failure). However for Participants withdrawn for other reasons (e.g. lost to follow-up) with a missing response (i.e. did not have the biopsy) the response was made as missing and not imputed.
Time Frame
Week 12 and Week 24
Title
Mean Change From Baseline in Peak Esophageal Eosinophil Counts at Weeks 12 and 24
Description
Participants underwent an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with biopsies at Screening and at Weeks 12 and 24. Peak esophageal eosinophils were calculated as the maximum count across all esophageal biopsies at each time point. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 12 and 24
Title
Change From Baseline in Mean Esophageal Eosinophil Counts at Weeks 12 and 24
Description
Participants underwent an EGD with biopsies at Screening and at Weeks 12 and 24. Mean esophageal eosinophils were calculated as the mean number across all esophageal biopsies at each time point. Screening value was considered as the Baseline value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-Baseline value minus the Baseline value.
Time Frame
Baseline, Weeks 12 and 24
Title
Absolute Blood Eosinophils Count at the Indicated Time Points
Description
Blood samples were obtained at Screening, pre-infusion and 24h and 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4 and 8; and at Week 2, 6, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 visits or Early Withdrawal Visit to estimate blood eosinophil count.
Time Frame
Screening, Day 1, Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34
Title
Plasma Concentration of Mepolizumab
Description
Blood samples were obtained at pre-infusion and 5m, 2h, 24h, 72-96h post-infusion at Day 1, Weeks 4, 8; and Weeks 2, 6 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34 to estimate the plasma concentration of mepolizumab. Only those participants available at specified time points are analyzed (represented as n=X,X,X in the category titles).
Time Frame
Day 1, Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 34

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
2 Years
Maximum Age & Unit of Time
17 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: A subject will be eligible for inclusion in this study only if all of the following criteria apply. Inclusion criteria pertain to all subjects in both cohorts (treatment and observational) unless otherwise stated. The subject signs and dates a written assent form (age appropriate) and the parent/guardian signs and dates a written informed consent form prior to the initiation of any study-related activities, including discontinuation of any prohibited medications. Male or female subjects aged 2 to 17 years (from 2nd birthday up to and not including 18th birthday), who weigh <=84.9kg (males)/ <= 72.5 (females) and who have a BMI between 5 and 85% for age, who speak, read and write English as age appropriate and/or parent/guardian. NOTE: If subject is within weight requirements but close to the upper or lower limits at screening and the investigator anticipates that during the study the subject's weight will change a become outside the weight requirements, the subject should be excluded from the study. To be eligible for entry in the treatment group of the study, a female subject is eligible to enter the study if she is: not pregnant or nursing; of non-childbearing potential. Non-childbearing potential is defined as a pre-menarcheal female who has not yet entered puberty as evidenced by lack of breast development (palpable glandular breast tissue); or a female who has documentation (medical report verification) of hysterectomy and/or bilateral oophorectomy; of childbearing potential. These females subjects must have a negative urine pregnancy test at the screening visit, and agree to consistent and correct use of one of the acceptable methods of birth control from at least the commencement of their last normal period prior to the first dose of study medication and to continue until the first normal period after treatment or after the Week 24 Follow-up visit, whichever is longest. The subject has a diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis and current evidence on biopsy of isolated eosinophilic esophagitis defined as: Peak esophageal eosinophil counts (highest count of eosinophils per HPF in at least one of all esophageal sites biopsied) of 20 or more eosinophils in a minimum of one HPF at 400X magnification on histology of esophageal biopsies from distal and mid-esophagus within two weeks of commencing study medication, as determined by the central histopathologist. Inadequate response to or intolerant of therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis The individual investigators will apply their clinical judgment to define whether a clinical response to therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis is inadequate. As guidance, inadequate response might consist of persistence under current or recent prior therapy, of symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis such as eosinophilic esophagitis-related pain in stomach, chest or throat; regurgitation; vomiting; pain or difficulties associated with drinking fluids or nutritional supplements; or pain or difficulties associated with eating. An inadequate response might also consist of persistent eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus, in the presence or in the absence of eosinophilic esophagitis-related symptoms. Similarly, the individual investigators will apply their clinical judgment to define whether a patient is intolerant to therapy. For guidance, intolerance to therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis may consist of undesirable side-effects of long-term therapy; or side-effects of long-term therapy that are difficult to manage; or marked non-compliance to therapy or rejection of therapy by the individual patient, or by the parent/guardian, which in the opinion of the investigator interferes with the patient's optimal disease management. The criteria used by the investigator to define inadequate response to or intolerance of therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis will be collected in the CRF. Exclusion Criteria: A subject will not be eligible for inclusion in this study if any of the following criteria apply. Exclusion criteria pertain to all subjects in both cohorts (treatment and observational) unless otherwise stated. Current evidence of eosinophilic gastrointestinal enteropathy (EGID), other than eosinophilic esophagitis. Evidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease, or other causes of esophagitis which in the investigator's opinion is the predominant cause of the subject's esophageal eosinophilia so that the investigator's opinion is allowed. Current presence, or history of (anytime in the past): hypereosinophilic syndromes, collagen vascular disease, vasculitis, allergic drug reaction as the cause of the peripheral eosinophilia, graft-versus host disease, chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disorders (ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, chronic granulomatous disease). Current evidence, or history of celiac disease. Current evidence of active H. pylori infection. Abnormal 12-lead ECG at Screening which is clinically significant in the opinion of the investigator. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Use or administration of any of the prohibited medications from Screening and throughout completion of Week 34 follow-up. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Failure to remain on a stable dose of one (or more) permitted medication(s) for at least 1 month prior to the Screening visit and throughout completion of Week 24 follow-up assessments. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Failure to remain on stable elemental diet or dietary manipulations for at least 3 months prior to the Screening Visit and throughout completion of Week 34 follow-up assessments. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Known history of allergic reaction to previous antibody therapy. Any previous treatment with anti-hIL-5, anti-IgE monoclonal antibody or other biological agents. Use of an investigational drug within 30 days of entering the study. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Exhibits evidence of renal disease or serum creatinine > 1.5 times upper limit of normal range (ULN). Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Exhibits evidence of hepatic disease, impairment or abnormal liver function test i.e. AST, ALT >1.5 times ULN, bilirubin >1.5 times ULN. Note that this exclusion criterion does not apply for subjects who are considered for enrollment in the observational cohort. Known evidence of the following infections/infestations: HIV, Hepatitis B or C, Bacterial infection, Parasitic infestation. History or suspicion of current drug abuse and alcohol abuse within the last 6 months.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
GSK Clinical Trials
Organizational Affiliation
GlaxoSmithKline
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Birmingham
State/Province
Alabama
ZIP/Postal Code
35205
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
San Diego
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
92123
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Tampa
State/Province
Florida
ZIP/Postal Code
33613
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Atlanta
State/Province
Georgia
ZIP/Postal Code
30322
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Springfield
State/Province
Illinois
ZIP/Postal Code
62794
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Evansville
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
47713
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Indianapolis
State/Province
Indiana
ZIP/Postal Code
46202
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Worcester
State/Province
Massachusetts
ZIP/Postal Code
01655
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Southfield
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48075
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Troy
State/Province
Michigan
ZIP/Postal Code
48098
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Minneapolis
State/Province
Minnesota
ZIP/Postal Code
55402
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Kansas City
State/Province
Missouri
ZIP/Postal Code
64108
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Saint Louis
State/Province
Missouri
ZIP/Postal Code
63104
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
New York
State/Province
New York
ZIP/Postal Code
10029
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Cincinnati
State/Province
Ohio
ZIP/Postal Code
45229
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Sioux Falls
State/Province
South Dakota
ZIP/Postal Code
57108
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Dallas
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
75230
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Dallas
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
75235
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Norfolk
State/Province
Virginia
ZIP/Postal Code
23507
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Milwaukee
State/Province
Wisconsin
ZIP/Postal Code
53215
Country
United States
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Brisbane
State/Province
Queensland
ZIP/Postal Code
4029
Country
Australia
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Hamilton
State/Province
Ontario
ZIP/Postal Code
L8N 3Z5
Country
Canada
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Kingston
State/Province
Ontario
ZIP/Postal Code
K7L 5G2
Country
Canada
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
London
State/Province
Ontario
ZIP/Postal Code
N6A 5W9
Country
Canada
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Montreal
State/Province
Quebec
ZIP/Postal Code
H3T 1C5
Country
Canada
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Liverpool
ZIP/Postal Code
L12 2AP
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
London
ZIP/Postal Code
WC1N 3JH
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Sheffield
ZIP/Postal Code
S10 2TH
Country
United Kingdom
Facility Name
GSK Investigational Site
City
Watford
ZIP/Postal Code
WD18 0HB
Country
United Kingdom

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Yes
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Patient-level data for this study will be made available through www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com following the timelines and process described on this site.
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
21835135
Citation
Assa'ad AH, Gupta SK, Collins MH, Thomson M, Heath AT, Smith DA, Perschy TL, Jurgensen CH, Ortega HG, Aceves SS. An antibody against IL-5 reduces numbers of esophageal intraepithelial eosinophils in children with eosinophilic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2011 Nov;141(5):1593-604. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.07.044. Epub 2011 Aug 9.
Results Reference
background
Links:
URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Description
Researchers can use this site to request access to anonymised patient level data and/or supporting documents from clinical studies to conduct further research.
Available IPD and Supporting Information:
Available IPD/Information Type
Informed Consent Form
Available IPD/Information URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Available IPD/Information Identifier
MEE103219
Available IPD/Information Comments
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register
Available IPD/Information Type
Statistical Analysis Plan
Available IPD/Information URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Available IPD/Information Identifier
MEE103219
Available IPD/Information Comments
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register
Available IPD/Information Type
Individual Participant Data Set
Available IPD/Information URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Available IPD/Information Identifier
MEE103219
Available IPD/Information Comments
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register
Available IPD/Information Type
Study Protocol
Available IPD/Information URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Available IPD/Information Identifier
MEE103219
Available IPD/Information Comments
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register
Available IPD/Information Type
Clinical Study Report
Available IPD/Information URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Available IPD/Information Identifier
MEE103219
Available IPD/Information Comments
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register
Available IPD/Information Type
Annotated Case Report Form
Available IPD/Information URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Available IPD/Information Identifier
MEE103219
Available IPD/Information Comments
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register
Available IPD/Information Type
Dataset Specification
Available IPD/Information URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com
Available IPD/Information Identifier
MEE103219
Available IPD/Information Comments
For additional information about this study please refer to the GSK Clinical Study Register

Learn more about this trial

Intravenous Mepolizumab In Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs