Trial Outcomes & Findings for Study of Intrathecal Idursulfase-IT Administered in Conjunction With Elaprase® in Pediatric Patients With Hunter Syndrome and Early Cognitive Impairment (NCT NCT02055118)
NCT ID: NCT02055118
Last Updated: 2021-06-11
Results Overview
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The GCA standard score of the DAS-II was used to obtain a general measure of cognitive ability. The GCA score represent a score (mean = 100 and standard deviation of 15) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. The score ranges from 30 to 170. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability.
COMPLETED
PHASE2/PHASE3
58 participants
Baseline, Week 52
2021-06-11
Participant Flow
Study was conducted at 9 centers in Australia, Canada, France, Mexico, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States between 24 Mar 2014 (first participant first visit) and 28 Sep 2017 (last participant last visit).
Overall, 103 participants were screened, of them 54 participants failed to meet the randomization and remaining 49 participants were randomized to receive either IT treatment or No IT treatment in pivotal study. A total of 9 participants were enrolled into the substudy.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to less than (\<) 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received intrathecal (IT) injections of 10 milligram (mg) Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S intrathecal drug delivery device (IDDD) along with Elaprase.
|
Substudy
Participants aged less than 3 years received Idursulfase-IT monthly once for 12 months along with Elaprase at a dose of 5 mg if aged less than or equal to (\<=) 8 months; 7.5 mg if aged greater than (\>) 8 to 30 months and 10 mg if aged \> 30 months to 3 years.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
STARTED
|
15
|
34
|
9
|
|
Overall Study
COMPLETED
|
15
|
32
|
9
|
|
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to less than (\<) 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received intrathecal (IT) injections of 10 milligram (mg) Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S intrathecal drug delivery device (IDDD) along with Elaprase.
|
Substudy
Participants aged less than 3 years received Idursulfase-IT monthly once for 12 months along with Elaprase at a dose of 5 mg if aged less than or equal to (\<=) 8 months; 7.5 mg if aged greater than (\>) 8 to 30 months and 10 mg if aged \> 30 months to 3 years.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Overall Study
Withdrawal by Subject
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
Baseline Characteristics
Study of Intrathecal Idursulfase-IT Administered in Conjunction With Elaprase® in Pediatric Patients With Hunter Syndrome and Early Cognitive Impairment
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
Substudy
n=9 Participants
Participants aged less than 3 years received Idursulfase-IT monthly once for 12 months along with Elaprase at a dose of 5 mg if aged \<= 8 months; 7.5 mg if aged \> 8 to 30 months and 10 mg if aged \> 30 months to 3 years.
|
Total
n=58 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Age, Continuous
|
5.29 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.624 • n=99 Participants
|
4.95 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.496 • n=107 Participants
|
2.48 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.483 • n=206 Participants
|
4.65 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.980 • n=7 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Female
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Sex: Female, Male
Male
|
15 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
34 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
58 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
|
5 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
15 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
|
8 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
25 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
8 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
41 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
|
2 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Asian
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
4 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Black or African American
|
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
2 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · White
|
12 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
23 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
42 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Other
|
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=107 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=206 Participants
|
10 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The GCA standard score of the DAS-II was used to obtain a general measure of cognitive ability. The GCA score represent a score (mean = 100 and standard deviation of 15) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. The score ranges from 30 to 170. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=29 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) General Conceptual Ability (GCA) Standard Score at Week 52
|
-7.4 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.22
|
-4.4 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.14
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. This test measures the following 4 key domains: communication, daily living skills, socialization, motor skills, and the adaptive behavior composite (a composite of the other 4 domains). The ABC score ranges from 20 to 160 on which higher scores indicate a higher level of adaptive functioning. A positive change value indicates improvement in adaptive functioning.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=14 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=31 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) Score at Week 52
|
-5.3 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.55
|
-5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.05
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28 and Week 40Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The GCA standard score of the DAS-II was used to obtain a general measure of cognitive ability. The GCA score represent a score (mean = 100 and standard deviation of 15) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. The score ranges from 30 to 170. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) General Conceptual Ability (GCA) Standard Score at Weeks 16, 28 and 40
Week 16
|
-2.9 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.33
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.54
|
|
Change From Baseline in the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) General Conceptual Ability (GCA) Standard Score at Weeks 16, 28 and 40
Week 28
|
-6.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.34
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.56
|
|
Change From Baseline in the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) General Conceptual Ability (GCA) Standard Score at Weeks 16, 28 and 40
Week 40
|
-6.4 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.87
|
-3.2 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.92
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28 and Week 40Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. This test measures the following 4 key domains: communication, daily living skills, socialization, motor skills, and the adaptive behavior composite (a composite of the other 4 domains). The ABC score ranges from 20 to 160 on which higher scores indicate a higher level of adaptive functioning. A positive change value indicates improvement in adaptive functioning.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) Score at Week 16, 28 and 40
Week 16
|
-2.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.21
|
-3.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 1.86
|
|
Change From Baseline in the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) Score at Week 16, 28 and 40
Week 28
|
-1.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.45
|
-1.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.01
|
|
Change From Baseline in the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) Score at Week 16, 28 and 40
Week 40
|
-3.3 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.41
|
-4.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 1.97
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The cluster scores represent a score (mean = 100 and standard deviation of 15) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability in each cluster: verbal (score range: 31-169), nonverbal (score range: 31-166) and spatial (score range: 32-170).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Verbal
|
-1.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.75
|
-6.9 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.81
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Nonverbal
|
-6.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 5.06
|
2.6 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.82
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Spatial
|
-5.6 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.18
|
1.9 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.47
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Special Nonverbal Composite (SNC)
|
-7.4 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.95
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.96
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Verbal
|
-7.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.26
|
-5.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.10
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Nonverbal
|
-8.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 5.41
|
0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.06
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Spatial
|
-7.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.66
|
-0.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.70
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Special Nonverbal Composite (SNC)
|
-8.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.01
|
-1.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.00
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Verbal
|
-7.3 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.01
|
-10.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.07
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Nonverbal
|
-8.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 5.35
|
-2.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.09
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Spatial
|
-7.3 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.39
|
0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.13
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Special Nonverbal Composite (SNC)
|
-9.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 5.51
|
-3.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.78
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Verbal
|
-5.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.45
|
-9.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.31
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Nonverbal
|
-11.2 Score on a scale
Standard Error 5.61
|
-1.5 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.25
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Spatial
|
-9.6 Score on a scale
Standard Error 4.21
|
-4.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.04
|
|
Change From Baseline in Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) Cluster Standard Scores at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Special Nonverbal Composite (SNC)
|
-11.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 5.38
|
-5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.74
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. This test measures the following 4 key domains: communication, daily living skills, socialization, motor skills, and the adaptive behavior composite (a composite of the other 4 domains). The standard scores represent a score (mean = 100 and standard deviation of 15) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. A positive change value indicates improvement in adaptive functioning. Communication, daily living skills, socialization and motor skills domains were reported here. The range for individual standard scores is 20-160.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 16: Communication
|
-2.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.65
|
-1.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 1.94
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills
|
-3.5 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.11
|
-3.5 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.33
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 16: Socialization
|
-4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.43
|
-2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.05
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 16: Motor Skills
|
1.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.00
|
0.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 1.46
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 28: Communication
|
-2.4 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.80
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.08
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills
|
0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.40
|
-2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.53
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 28: Socialization
|
-0.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.37
|
-0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.02
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 28: Motor Skills
|
-0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.46
|
0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 1.77
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 40: Communication
|
-3.5 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.82
|
-4.6 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.07
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills
|
-2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.47
|
-3.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.57
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 40: Socialization
|
-4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.65
|
-3.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.17
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 40: Motor Skills
|
-2.2 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.47
|
-1.1 Score on a scale
Standard Error 1.77
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 52: Communication
|
-4.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.99
|
-5.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.18
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills
|
-4.5 Score on a scale
Standard Error 3.50
|
-4.4 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.57
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 52: Socialization
|
-5.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.72
|
-2.8 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.21
|
|
Change From Baseline in Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) Standard Scores of Other Domains at Weeks 16, 28, 40, 52
Week 52: Motor Skills
|
-5.7 Score on a scale
Standard Error 2.47
|
-1.3 Score on a scale
Standard Error 1.77
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The early years battery is designed for children ages 2 years 6 months through 6 years 11 months. Standardized scores were converted to age equivalent scores to measure ability, skill, and knowledge expressed as the age at which most individuals reach the same level. The mean age equivalent score is obtained by averaging out the age-equivalent scores. The higher score indicates greater cognitive ability. The subtest score represent a score (mean = 50 and standard deviation of 10) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=32 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Verbal Comprehension
|
0.05 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.748
|
0.03 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.700
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Picture Similarities
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.056
|
0.48 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.002
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Naming Vocabulary
|
0.18 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.432
|
-0.02 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.702
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Pattern Construction
|
-0.14 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.435
|
0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.475
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Matrices
|
0.48 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.076
|
0.38 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.322
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Copying
|
0.05 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.197
|
0.10 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.211
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Verbal Comprehension
|
-0.16 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.846
|
0.39 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.780
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Picture Similarities
|
0.39 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.051
|
0.43 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.693
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Naming Vocabulary
|
0.27 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.325
|
0.26 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.870
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Pattern Construction
|
-0.18 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.389
|
0.29 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.543
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Matrices
|
0.78 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.089
|
0.51 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.802
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Copying
|
0.06 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.291
|
0.14 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.361
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Verbal Comprehension
|
-0.11 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.783
|
0.17 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.519
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Picture Similarities
|
0.23 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.277
|
0.52 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.081
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Naming Vocabulary
|
-0.04 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.950
|
0.17 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.721
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Pattern Construction
|
-0.02 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.317
|
0.43 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.733
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Matrices
|
0.15 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.890
|
0.45 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.721
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Copying
|
0.33 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.472
|
0.30 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.556
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Verbal Comprehension
|
0.16 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.090
|
0.32 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.657
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Picture Similarities
|
0.27 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.207
|
0.84 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.215
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Naming Vocabulary
|
0.16 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.959
|
0.34 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.006
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Pattern Construction
|
0.02 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.360
|
0.31 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.660
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Matrices
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.863
|
0.64 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.771
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalent Score for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Copying
|
0.20 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.438
|
0.28 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.502
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The school age battery is designed for children ages 7 years 0 months through 17 years 11 months. Standardized scores were converted to age equivalent scores to measure ability, skill, and knowledge expressed as the age at which most individuals reach the same level. The mean age equivalent score is obtained by averaging out the age-equivalent scores. The higher score indicates greater cognitive ability. The subtest score represents a score (mean = 50 and standard deviation of 10) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability. In the below table, SQR stands for "Sequential \& Quantitative Reasoning".
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=1 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=4 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Recall of Designs
|
-1.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
1.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.414
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Word Definitions
|
1.50 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.707
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Pattern Construction
|
1.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-0.13 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.177
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Matrices
|
-0.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.38 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.652
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Verbal Similarities
|
0.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.63 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.884
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: SQR
|
1.17 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.63 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.884
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Recall of Designs
|
-1.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Word Definitions
|
1.50 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Pattern Construction
|
1.50 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-1.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Matrices
|
-2.50 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Verbal Similarities
|
0.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: SQR
|
0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Recall of Designs
|
-2.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Word Definitions
|
1.50 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Pattern Construction
|
1.92 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Matrices
|
-2.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
1.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Verbal Similarities
|
0.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
1.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: SQR
|
1.17 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
1.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Recall of Designs
|
-2.50 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Word Definitions
|
1.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Pattern Construction
|
1.92 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-2.75 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Matrices
|
-0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Verbal Similarities
|
1.17 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: SQR
|
0.67 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
1.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The early years battery is designed for children ages 2 years 6 months through 6 years 11 months. The DQ is a means to express a neurodevelopmental/cognitive delay. The DQ was computed as a ratio and expressed as a percentage using the age-equivalent score divided by the age at testing (\[age-equivalent score/chronological age\] × 100; range, 0, 100). The higher score indicates greater cognitive ability. The subtest score represent a score (mean = 50 and standard deviation of 10) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=14 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=32 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Verbal Comprehension
|
-5.91 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.454
|
-4.71 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.990
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Picture Similarities
|
-4.91 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 16.959
|
3.41 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 19.157
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Naming Vocabulary
|
-2.09 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 7.758
|
-5.44 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.221
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Pattern Construction
|
-7.79 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 7.339
|
-0.43 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 9.213
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Matrices
|
4.60 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 30.134
|
0.57 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 24.054
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Copying
|
-4.59 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 4.206
|
-4.15 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 4.794
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Verbal Comprehension
|
-14.05 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 16.558
|
-1.46 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.790
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Picture Similarities
|
-1.89 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 17.409
|
0.03 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.733
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Naming Vocabulary
|
-3.78 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 6.970
|
-3.76 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.235
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Pattern Construction
|
-11.95 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 7.039
|
-3.09 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.708
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Matrices
|
2.96 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.576
|
0.45 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 34.931
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Copying
|
-6.88 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 5.759
|
-6.66 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 7.820
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Verbal Comprehension
|
-15.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 17.544
|
-8.97 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.618
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Picture Similarities
|
-6.86 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 19.775
|
-3.11 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 20.029
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Naming Vocabulary
|
-10.02 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.307
|
-8.96 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.427
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Pattern Construction
|
-11.56 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 6.989
|
-3.89 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.394
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Matrices
|
-7.79 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 24.750
|
-5.73 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 32.283
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Copying
|
-6.15 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 9.533
|
-7.69 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.208
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Verbal Comprehension
|
-14.49 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 22.614
|
-8.59 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.473
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Picture Similarities
|
-8.32 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 19.393
|
0.56 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 22.325
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Naming Vocabulary
|
-10.29 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.522
|
-8.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.543
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Pattern Construction
|
-13.59 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 8.232
|
-8.49 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.528
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Matrices
|
-12.47 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 23.892
|
-5.53 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 32.584
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Copying
|
-10.19 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 9.608
|
-10.34 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.429
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The school age battery is designed for children ages 7 years 0 months through 17 years 11 months. The DQ is a means to express a neurodevelopmental/cognitive delay. The DQ was computed as a ratio and expressed as a percentage using the age-equivalent score divided by the age at testing (\[age-equivalent score/chronological age\] × 100; range, 0, 100). The higher score indicates greater cognitive ability. The subtest score represent a score (mean = 50 and standard deviation of 10) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability. In the below table, SQR stands for "Sequential \& Quantitative Reasoning".
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=1 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=4 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Recall of Designs
|
-15.10 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
9.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 17.395
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Word Definitions
|
9.60 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
0.00 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 9.192
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Pattern Construction
|
5.70 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-4.85 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 2.051
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Matrices
|
-7.60 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
2.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 33.800
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Verbal Similarities
|
3.70 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
4.65 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.960
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: SQR
|
6.70 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
4.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.748
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Recall of Designs
|
-10.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-4.80 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Word Definitions
|
8.70 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-8.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Pattern Construction
|
8.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-26.90 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Matrices
|
-21.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-3.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Verbal Similarities
|
2.60 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-4.80 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: SQR
|
-1.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
4.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Recall of Designs
|
-18.70 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-6.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Word Definitions
|
7.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-9.90 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Pattern Construction
|
10.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-7.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Matrices
|
-20.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
10.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Verbal Similarities
|
1.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
5.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: SQR
|
4.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
5.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Recall of Designs
|
-22.90 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-8.10 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Word Definitions
|
8.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-11.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Pattern Construction
|
9.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-41.00 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Matrices
|
-6.90 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-5.70 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Verbal Similarities
|
3.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-8.10 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: SQR
|
-0.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
3.60 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The early years battery is designed for children ages 2 years 6 months through 6 years 11 months. The higher score indicates greater cognitive ability. The subtest score represent a score (mean = 50 and standard deviation of 10) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=14 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=32 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Verbal Comprehension
|
-1.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.27
|
-3.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.30
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Picture Similarities
|
-2.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.62
|
2.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.10
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Naming Vocabulary
|
-0.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.01
|
-2.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.21
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Pattern Construction
|
-6.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.01
|
0.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.77
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Matrices
|
-4.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 17.73
|
0.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 14.65
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Copying
|
-2.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.48
|
-0.5 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.76
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Verbal Comprehension
|
-2.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.32
|
-1.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 11.33
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Picture Similarities
|
2.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.97
|
0.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.28
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Naming Vocabulary
|
-0.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 4.13
|
-2.0 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.79
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Pattern Construction
|
-8.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 5.36
|
-1.5 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.74
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Matrices
|
2.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.47
|
0.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 16.09
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Copying
|
-0.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.36
|
-1.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 11.26
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Verbal Comprehension
|
-4.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.21
|
-3.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 6.55
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Picture Similarities
|
0.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 13.04
|
-2.0 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.81
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Naming Vocabulary
|
-4.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 9.69
|
-3.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 7.54
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Pattern Construction
|
-8.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 5.78
|
-2.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 11.24
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Matrices
|
-7.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 16.87
|
-3.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 16.71
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Copying
|
-1.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 11.39
|
-0.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 12.69
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Verbal Comprehension
|
-4.6 T-score
Standard Deviation 11.21
|
-4.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 11.10
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Picture Similarities
|
-1.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 15.41
|
0.3 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.44
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Naming Vocabulary
|
-2.7 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.59
|
-3.2 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.54
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Pattern Construction
|
-10.9 T-score
Standard Deviation 8.03
|
-6.1 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.90
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Matrices
|
-8.5 T-score
Standard Deviation 15.52
|
-0.8 T-score
Standard Deviation 17.00
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for Early Years of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Copying
|
-4.0 T-score
Standard Deviation 10.68
|
-2.4 T-score
Standard Deviation 12.07
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The DAS-II was used to assess cognitive development in all randomized participants. The school age battery is designed for children ages 7 years 0 months through 17 years 11 months. The higher score indicates greater cognitive ability. The subtest score represent a score (mean = 50 and standard deviation of 10) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of cognitive ability. A positive change value indicates improvement in cognitive ability. In the below table, SQR stands for "Sequential \& Quantitative Reasoning".
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=1 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=4 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: SQR
|
-2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
9.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Recall of Designs
|
-10.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.73
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Word Definitions
|
7.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.78
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Pattern Construction
|
3.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.41
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Matrices
|
-5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 12.02
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Verbal Similarities
|
4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 8.49
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: SQR
|
2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
3.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.83
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Recall of Designs
|
-7.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
10.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Word Definitions
|
5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-8.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Pattern Construction
|
4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-19.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Matrices
|
-12.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-9.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Verbal Similarities
|
3.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-10.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: SQR
|
-2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
9.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Recall of Designs
|
-14.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Word Definitions
|
5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-16.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Pattern Construction
|
5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-3.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Matrices
|
-11.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
1.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Verbal Similarities
|
2.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
1.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: SQR
|
1.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
10.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Recall of Designs
|
-17.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Word Definitions
|
6.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-17.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Pattern Construction
|
4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-30.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Matrices
|
-4.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
|
Change From Baseline of T-scores for School Age of Core Subtests of the Differential Ability Scale, Second Edition (DAS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Verbal Similarities
|
5.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
-10.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation NA
Standard deviation was not calculated due to less number of participants.
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. Standardized scores (range 40-160) were converted to age equivalent scores to measure ability, skill, and knowledge expressed as the age at which most individuals reach the same level. The mean age equivalent score is obtained by averaging out the age-equivalent scores for the all the sub-domains except for Gross and Fine motor skills (range: 0, unbound). A positive value indicates improvement in health and cognition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
0.02 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.477
|
-0.09 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.149
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Expressive
|
0.09 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.512
|
0.12 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.544
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Receptive
|
-0.09 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.020
|
-0.32 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.845
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Written
|
0.08 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.406
|
0.02 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.572
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
0.16 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.583
|
0.05 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.710
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
-0.23 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.864
|
-0.11 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.599
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-0.16 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.712
|
-0.09 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.792
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-0.09 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.749
|
0.04 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.637
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
0.21 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.934
|
0.11 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.783
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Motor Skills- Fine
|
0.30 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.499
|
0.29 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.429
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Motor Skills- Gross
|
0.17 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.607
|
0.36 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.736
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Expressive
|
0.28 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.669
|
0.36 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.806
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Receptive
|
0.83 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.393
|
0.44 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.333
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Written
|
0.21 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.663
|
0.18 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.525
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
0.22 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.701
|
0.26 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.762
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
0.67 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.481
|
0.34 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.326
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
0.48 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.260
|
0.16 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.544
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
0.29 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.731
|
0.27 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.982
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
0.07 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.884
|
0.43 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.876
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
0.62 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.818
|
0.51 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.017
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Motor Skills- Fine
|
0.30 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.403
|
0.37 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.533
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Motor Skills- Gross
|
0.41 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.588
|
0.82 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.061
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Expressive
|
0.28 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.679
|
0.30 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.764
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Receptive
|
0.80 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.388
|
-0.07 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.015
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Written
|
0.30 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.699
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.740
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
0.38 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.640
|
0.02 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.760
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
0.72 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.542
|
0.39 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.420
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
0.18 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.720
|
0.29 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.587
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
0.14 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.178
|
0.26 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.581
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
0.05 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.796
|
0.10 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.973
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
0.44 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.808
|
0.31 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.921
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Motor Skills- Fine
|
0.44 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.453
|
0.44 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.640
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Motor Skills- Gross
|
0.33 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.662
|
0.73 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.990
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Expressive
|
0.32 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.973
|
0.34 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.858
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Receptive
|
1.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.253
|
-0.05 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.953
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Written
|
0.16 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.485
|
0.11 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.783
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
0.36 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.603
|
0.30 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.941
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
0.27 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.678
|
0.37 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.405
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
0.42 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.572
|
0.35 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.840
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
0.29 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.211
|
0.31 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.189
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
0.00 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.752
|
0.36 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.005
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
0.67 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.446
|
0.45 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.839
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Motor Skills- Fine
|
0.38 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.365
|
0.58 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.645
|
|
Change From Baseline of Age Equivalents Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Motor Skills- Gross
|
0.25 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.773
|
0.93 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.008
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. The DQ is a means to express a neurodevelopmental/cognitive delay. The DQ was computed as a ratio and expressed as a percentage using the age-equivalent score divided by the age at testing (\[age-equivalent score/chronological age\] × 100; range, 0, 100). The overall DQ score is calculated from the mean age-equivalent score obtained by averaging out the age equivalent scores for the all the sub-domains except for Gross and Fine motor skills. This test measures the following 4 key domains: communication, daily living skills, socialization, motor skills, and the adaptive behavior composite (a composite of the other 4 domains). A positive value indicates improvement in health and cognition.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Expressive
|
-1.09 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 7.866
|
-2.57 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.781
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Receptive
|
-2.58 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.735
|
-8.19 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 26.774
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Written
|
-4.10 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 8.727
|
-5.62 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.554
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-0.37 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.814
|
-4.48 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.498
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
-2.80 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 30.338
|
-7.18 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 24.610
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
-9.94 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 21.052
|
-6.35 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.185
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-9.08 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.414
|
-6.56 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.923
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-3.87 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 9.602
|
-3.17 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.610
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
1.66 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.903
|
-0.64 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.366
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Motor Skills- Fine
|
0.48 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.969
|
0.00 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.308
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-3.92 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.524
|
1.28 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.410
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Expressive
|
-0.23 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.301
|
-0.59 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.480
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Receptive
|
3.30 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 24.423
|
0.50 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 17.058
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Written
|
-5.15 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.510
|
-6.54 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.339
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-3.07 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.984
|
-2.80 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.937
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
6.75 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 28.703
|
-3.37 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 25.635
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
3.41 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 26.699
|
-4.27 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.124
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-4.88 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.881
|
-2.45 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 19.142
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-2.30 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.889
|
2.16 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 17.844
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
8.17 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 17.767
|
4.49 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 20.413
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Motor Skills- Fine
|
-2.86 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 9.014
|
-2.05 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.124
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-3.05 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.068
|
7.78 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 21.604
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Expressive
|
-2.35 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.521
|
-3.74 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.846
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Receptive
|
0.31 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 22.511
|
-8.32 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 29.716
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Written
|
-5.39 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.066
|
-13.31 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.173
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-2.29 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.856
|
-9.72 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.988
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
4.40 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 27.464
|
-4.53 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 27.189
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
-5.54 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.516
|
-4.33 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.630
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-11.75 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.650
|
-7.31 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 22.758
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-5.47 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.597
|
-6.38 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.307
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
1.83 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.194
|
-1.20 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 19.009
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Motor Skills- Fine
|
-3.51 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.891
|
-4.04 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.407
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-9.01 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.404
|
1.75 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.235
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Expressive
|
-4.87 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.094
|
-5.22 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 14.616
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Receptive
|
5.58 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.225
|
-10.14 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 29.190
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Written
|
-11.22 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 10.973
|
-13.90 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 16.079
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-6.46 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 13.154
|
-7.10 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.149
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
-6.81 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 28.704
|
-8.64 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 27.817
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
-3.64 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 11.626
|
-5.79 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.032
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-11.26 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 19.505
|
-6.54 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 20.142
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-8.53 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 12.960
|
-4.46 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 17.892
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
1.95 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 25.499
|
-0.83 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.499
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Motor Skills- Fine
|
-8.58 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 8.790
|
-4.67 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 15.370
|
|
Change From Baseline of Development Quotients of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-14.54 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 21.617
|
2.46 Percentage of chronological age
Standard Deviation 18.655
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. This test measures the following 4 key domains: communication, daily living skills, socialization, motor skills, and the adaptive behavior composite (a composite of the other 4 domains). The V-scale scores represent a score (mean = 15 and standard deviation of 3; range: 1-24) on which higher scores indicate a higher level of adaptive functioning. A positive change value indicates improvement in adaptive functioning.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Expressive
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.81
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.05
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Receptive
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.84
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.85
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Communication- Written
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.83
|
-1.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.87
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.28
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.05
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.61
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.93
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
-1.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.23
|
-1.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.34
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.80
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.46
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.46
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.55
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.37
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.62
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Motor Skills- Fine
|
0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.36
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.33
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.61
|
0.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.00
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Expressive
|
0.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.00
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.20
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Receptive
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.17
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Communication- Written
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.41
|
-1.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.04
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.75
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.95
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.75
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.11
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.50
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.21
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.51
|
-0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.84
|
0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.49
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
1.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.03
|
0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.04
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Motor Skills- Fine
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.06
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.62
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.33
|
0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.06
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Expressive
|
0.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.85
|
-0.8 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.76
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Receptive
|
-0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.08
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.07
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Communication- Written
|
-0.9 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.59
|
-2.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.05
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.59
|
-1.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.91
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.66
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.69
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.09
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.96
|
-0.8 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.80
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-0.8 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.70
|
-0.9 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.72
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.10
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.24
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Motor Skills- Fine
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.56
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.79
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-0.8 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.90
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.23
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Expressive
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.88
|
-1.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.44
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Receptive
|
0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.00
|
-0.9 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.08
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Communication- Written
|
-2.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.09
|
-3.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.25
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Community
|
-1.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.70
|
-1.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.46
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Domestic
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.77
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.40
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Daily Living Skills- Personal
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.85
|
-0.9 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.76
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Coping Skills
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.80
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.55
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Interpersonal Relationship
|
-1.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.65
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.81
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Socialization- Play and Leisure Time
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 3.38
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.00
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Motor Skills- Fine
|
-1.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.08
|
-0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.06
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Sub-domains of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Motor Skills- Gross
|
-1.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.07
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.35
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. Maladaptive behavior index is a composite of the internalizing, externalizing, and other types of undesirable behavior that may interfere with the individual's adaptive functioning. The V-scale scores represent a score (mean = 15 and standard deviation of 3; range: 1-24) on which higher scores indicate greater maladaptive behaviors. A positive change value indicates increase of maladaptive behavior.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Maladaptive Behavior Index
|
0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.14
|
-0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.18
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Internalizing
|
0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.37
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.31
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 16: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Externalizing
|
0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.71
|
0.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.53
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Maladaptive Behavior Index
|
0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.91
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.27
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Internalizing
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.60
|
-0.8 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.11
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 28: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Externalizing
|
0.6 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.34
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.01
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Maladaptive Behavior Index
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.40
|
-0.3 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.13
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Internalizing
|
-1.0 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.57
|
-0.7 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.98
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 40: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Externalizing
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.64
|
-0.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.29
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Maladaptive Behavior Index
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.45
|
-0.5 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.41
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Internalizing
|
-1.1 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.96
|
-0.9 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.72
|
|
Change From Baseline of V-Scale Scores of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales at Weeks 16, 28, 40 and 52
Week 52: Maladaptive Behavior Index- Externalizing
|
-0.4 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.27
|
-0.2 Score on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.69
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16, Week 28, Week 40 and Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The VABS-II test measures adaptive behaviors, including the ability to cope with environmental changes, to learn new everyday skills, and to demonstrate independence. Maladaptive behavior index (MBI) is a composite of the internalizing, externalizing, and other types of undesirable behavior that may interfere with the individual's adaptive functioning. The V scale scores represent a score (mean = 15 and standard deviation of 3; range: 1-24) on which higher scores indicate greater maladaptive behaviors. The v-scale score ranges for MBI, externalizing and internalizing scores are defined as clinically significant: 21-24, elevated: 18-20, average: 1-17.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: MBI- Average
|
7 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: MBI- Elevated
|
5 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: MBI- Clinically Significant
|
2 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: Internalizing- Average
|
7 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: Internalizing- Elevated
|
4 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: Internalizing- Clinically Significant
|
3 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: Externalizing- Average
|
8 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: Externalizing- Elevated
|
5 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Baseline: Externalizing- Clinically Significant
|
1 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: MBI- Average
|
4 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: MBI- Elevated
|
8 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: MBI- Clinically Significant
|
1 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: Internalizing- Average
|
7 Participants
|
19 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: Internalizing- Elevated
|
6 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: Internalizing- Clinically Significant
|
2 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: Externalizing- Average
|
7 Participants
|
13 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: Externalizing- Elevated
|
7 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 16: Externalizing- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: MBI- Average
|
7 Participants
|
8 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: MBI- Elevated
|
7 Participants
|
16 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: MBI- Clinically Significant
|
1 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: Internalizing- Average
|
9 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: Internalizing- Elevated
|
6 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: Internalizing- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: Externalizing- Average
|
10 Participants
|
11 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: Externalizing- Elevated
|
5 Participants
|
14 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 28: Externalizing- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: MBI- Average
|
7 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: MBI- Elevated
|
8 Participants
|
21 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: MBI- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: Internalizing- Average
|
9 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: Internalizing- Elevated
|
6 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: Internalizing- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: Externalizing- Average
|
9 Participants
|
12 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: Externalizing- Elevated
|
6 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 40: Externalizing- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: MBI- Average
|
9 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: MBI- Elevated
|
6 Participants
|
18 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: MBI- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: Internalizing- Average
|
11 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: Internalizing- Elevated
|
4 Participants
|
9 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: Internalizing- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: Externalizing- Average
|
10 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: Externalizing- Elevated
|
5 Participants
|
15 Participants
|
|
Observed Maladaptive Levels of Maladaptive Behavior Index and Its Sub-scales of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II)
Week 52: Externalizing- Clinically Significant
|
0 Participants
|
2 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Pre-dose, 30, 60, 120 minutes, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 30 and 36 hour (h) post-dose on Weeks 4, 24, and 48Population: Pharmacokinetic (PK) population included all participants who received investigational product and participated in the scheduled PK studies, and for whom at least 1 post-dose PK blood sample was collected. PK population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The Cmax of idursulfase after IT administration was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=24 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Maximum Observed Drug Concentration (Cmax) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 4
|
253.44 Nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)
Standard Deviation 686.569
|
—
|
|
Maximum Observed Drug Concentration (Cmax) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 24
|
132.87 Nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)
Standard Deviation 147.044
|
—
|
|
Maximum Observed Drug Concentration (Cmax) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 48
|
136.15 Nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)
Standard Deviation 127.524
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Pre-dose, 30, 60, 120 minutes, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 30 and 36 hour (h) post-dose on Weeks 4, 24, and 48Population: PK population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The tmax of idursulfase after IT administration was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=24 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Time to Reach Maximum Drug Concentration (Tmax) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 4
|
10.07 Hour (h)
Standard Deviation 7.217
|
—
|
|
Time to Reach Maximum Drug Concentration (Tmax) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 24
|
10.37 Hour (h)
Standard Deviation 7.302
|
—
|
|
Time to Reach Maximum Drug Concentration (Tmax) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 48
|
10.18 Hour (h)
Standard Deviation 6.609
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Pre-dose, 30, 60, 120 minutes, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 30 and 36 hour (h) post-dose on Weeks 4, 24, and 48Population: PK population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The AUC0-t of idursulfase after IT administration was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=24 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Area Under the Concentration Versus Time Curve From Zero From the Time of Dosing to the Last Measurable Concentration (AUC0-t) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 4
|
2601 Nanogram*hour per milliliter (ng*h/mL)
Standard Deviation 5028.0
|
—
|
|
Area Under the Concentration Versus Time Curve From Zero From the Time of Dosing to the Last Measurable Concentration (AUC0-t) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 24
|
2949 Nanogram*hour per milliliter (ng*h/mL)
Standard Deviation 4500.4
|
—
|
|
Area Under the Concentration Versus Time Curve From Zero From the Time of Dosing to the Last Measurable Concentration (AUC0-t) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 48
|
2863 Nanogram*hour per milliliter (ng*h/mL)
Standard Deviation 3571.6
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Pre-dose, 30, 60, 120 minutes, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 30 and 36 hour (h) post-dose on Weeks 4, 24, and 48Population: PK population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The t1/2 of idursulfase after IT administration was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=24 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Terminal Half-life (t1/2) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 4
|
11.39 Hour (h)
Standard Deviation 4.996
|
—
|
|
Terminal Half-life (t1/2) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 24
|
10.68 Hour (h)
Standard Deviation 2.851
|
—
|
|
Terminal Half-life (t1/2) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 48
|
11.52 Hour (h)
Standard Deviation 4.243
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Pre-dose, 30, 60, 120 minutes, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 30 and 36 hour (h) post-dose on Weeks 4, 24, and 48Population: PK population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
The CL/F of idursulfase after IT administration was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=24 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Total Body Clearance for Extravascular Administration Divided by the Fraction of Dose Absorbed (CL/F) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 4
|
4.82 Liter per hour (L/h)
Standard Deviation 1.753
|
—
|
|
Total Body Clearance for Extravascular Administration Divided by the Fraction of Dose Absorbed (CL/F) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 24
|
4.54 Liter per hour (L/h)
Standard Deviation 2.029
|
—
|
|
Total Body Clearance for Extravascular Administration Divided by the Fraction of Dose Absorbed (CL/F) of Idursulfase After IT Administration
Week 48
|
3.94 Liter per hour (L/h)
Standard Deviation 1.461
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 52Population: PK population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
Change from baseline in the concentration of GAG in CSF was reported.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=14 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=30 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change From Baseline in the Concentration of Glycosaminoglycans (GAG) in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) at Week 52
|
-124.6 Nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)
Standard Deviation 905.08
|
-961.8 Nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL)
Standard Deviation 797.01
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Pre-dose on Week 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48Population: PK population with number of participants evaluable for this outcome measure.
CSF samples were collected via the IDDD or lumbar puncture prior to the injection of Idursulfase-IT.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=33 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 4
|
0 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 0
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 8
|
552.75 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 2638.000
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 12
|
520.29 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 2096.512
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 16
|
176.87 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 572.459
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 20
|
146.66 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 553.354
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 24
|
268.72 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 979.733
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 28
|
1471.61 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 5893.839
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 32
|
141.16 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 443.484
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 36
|
521.63 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 1524.740
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 40
|
14436.70 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 75712.900
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 44
|
1105.46 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 5331.560
|
—
|
|
Concentration of Idursulfase in Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF)
Week 48
|
678.50 ng/mL
Standard Deviation 3266.592
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Week 52Population: ITT population included all randomized participants.
The EQ-5D provides a descriptive profile and index value for health status. The questionnaire measures 5 dimensions of health status: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. For each dimension, there are 5 levels of response: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems, and unable to do/extreme problems.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=34 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Mobility: No problems
|
9 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Mobility: Slight problems
|
4 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Mobility: Moderate problems
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Mobility: Severe problems
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Mobility: Unable to do
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Mobility: Data missing
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Self-care: No problems
|
3 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Self-care: Slight problems
|
4 Participants
|
10 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Self-care: Moderate problems
|
4 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Self-care: Severe problems
|
0 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Self-care: Unable to do
|
3 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Self-care: Data missing
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Usual activities: No problems
|
8 Participants
|
17 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Usual activities: Slight problems
|
3 Participants
|
5 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Usual activities: Moderate problems
|
2 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Usual activities: Severe problems
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Usual activities: Unable to do
|
1 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Usual activities: Data missing
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Pain/discomfort: No problems
|
6 Participants
|
20 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Pain/discomfort: Slight problems
|
8 Participants
|
7 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Pain/discomfort: Moderate problems
|
0 Participants
|
3 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Pain/discomfort: Severe problems
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Pain/discomfort: Extreme problems
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Pain/discomfort: Data missing
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Anxiety/depression: No problems
|
11 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Anxiety/depression: Slight problems
|
3 Participants
|
6 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Anxiety/depression: Moderate problems
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Anxiety/depression: Severe problems
|
0 Participants
|
1 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Anxiety/depression: Extreme problems
|
0 Participants
|
0 Participants
|
|
Participant Response to Quality of Life EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) Questionnaire at Week 52
Anxiety/depression: Data missing
|
1 Participants
|
4 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: From start of study treatment up to Week 53Population: Safety population included all randomized participants with any post-randomization safety assessments, analyzed according to the treatment received.
An adverse event (AE) was any noxious, pathologic, or unintended change in anatomical, physiologic, or metabolic function as indicated by physical signs, symptoms, or laboratory changes occurring in any phase of a clinical study, whether or not considered investigational product-related. Treatment-emergent AEs for the no IT treatment group were defined as all AEs occurring on or after the date of randomization and at or before the end of the study (EOS) visit. Treatment-emergent AEs for the IT treatment group were defined as all AEs occurring on or after the date of the first IDDD implant surgery or Treatment-Emergentfirst dose of the investigational product (whichever was earlier) and at or before the EOS visit (+30 days) or 2 weeks after the removal of the last IDDD (whichever was later).
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=33 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Intrathecal Drug Delivery Device (IDDD)-Related Adverse Events
TEAEs
|
14 Participants
|
33 Participants
|
|
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) and Intrathecal Drug Delivery Device (IDDD)-Related Adverse Events
IDDD-related AE
|
0 Participants
|
22 Participants
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 52Population: Substudy population included all participants enrolled and treated with investigational product in the substudy.
Participants who were younger than 3 years were assessed using the BSID-III. The BSID--III is a series of measurements to assess the motor (fine and gross), language (receptive and expressive), and cognitive development of infants and toddlers and consists of a series of developmental play tasks. The composite score for the cognitive scale, language scale, and motor scale are normed and have a mean=100, SD=15 and range of 40-160. Higher values denote stronger skills and abilities in the domain, indicating better outcomes. Participant wise data at evaluable timepoints was reported for this outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=9 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor
|
76 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor
|
94 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor
|
67 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor
|
103 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor
|
107 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor
|
103 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor
|
107 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor
|
97 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor
|
82 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor
|
67 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor
|
94 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor
|
82 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor
|
76 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor
|
82 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor
|
76 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor
|
82 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor
|
88 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor
|
88 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor
|
82 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor
|
76 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor
|
88 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor
|
88 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28:Participant 9: Motor
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language
|
89 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language
|
94 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language
|
74 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language
|
77 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language
|
74 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language
|
77 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language
|
71 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language
|
91 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language
|
86 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language
|
89 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language
|
89 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language
|
59 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language
|
53 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language
|
47 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language
|
89 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language
|
86 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language
|
77 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language
|
89 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language
|
83 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language
|
74 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language
|
74 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language
|
71 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language
|
86 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language
|
100 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language
|
103 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language
|
62 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language
|
71 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language
|
71 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language
|
79 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language
|
74 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
100 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
95 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
75 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
80 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
95 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
100 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
80 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
80 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
100 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
95 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
105 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
80 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
100 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
110 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
85 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
90 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Composite Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
95 Score on a scale
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 52Population: Substudy population included all participants enrolled and treated with investigational product in the substudy.
Participants who were younger than 3 years were assessed using the BSID-III. The BSID--III is a series of measurements to assess the motor (fine and gross), language (receptive and expressive), and cognitive development of infants and toddlers and consists of a series of developmental play tasks. Percentile scores range from 1 to 99 with 50 as the mean and median. Higher percentile means higher the rank of the child relative to the normed population. Participant wise data at evaluable timepoints was reported for this outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=9 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor
|
42 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor
|
12 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor
|
1 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor
|
34 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor
|
12 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor
|
5 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor
|
12 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor
|
5 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor
|
12 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor
|
21 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor
|
21 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor
|
12 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor
|
5 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor
|
34 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor
|
1 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor
|
58 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor
|
68 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor
|
58 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor
|
68 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor
|
5 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor
|
1 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor
|
21 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor
|
21 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language
|
23 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language
|
34 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language
|
4 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language
|
6 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language
|
4 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language
|
6 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language
|
3 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language
|
27 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language
|
18 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language
|
23 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language
|
23 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language
|
0.3 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language
|
0.1 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language
|
0.1 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language
|
23 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language
|
18 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language
|
6 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language
|
23 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language
|
13 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language
|
4 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language
|
4 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language
|
3 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language
|
18 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language
|
50 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language
|
58 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language
|
1 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language
|
3 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language
|
3 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language
|
8 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language
|
4 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
50 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
37 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
5 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
9 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
37 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
50 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
9 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
9 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
50 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
37 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
63 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
9 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
50 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
75 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
16 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
25 Percentile score
|
—
|
|
Percentile Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
37 Percentile score
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 52Population: Substudy population included all participants enrolled and treated with investigational product in the substudy.
Participants who were younger than 3 years were assessed using the BSID-III. The BSID--III is a series of measurements to assess the motor (fine and gross), language (receptive and expressive), and cognitive development of infants and toddlers and consists of a series of developmental play tasks. Standardized scores (range 40-160) were converted to age- equivalent scores to measure ability, skill, and knowledge expressed as the age at which most individuals reach the same level (age norm; range: 0, unbound). Higher values present better outcomes. Participant wise data at evaluable timepoints was reported for this outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=9 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
32 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
38 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
34 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
32 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
32 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
32 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
33 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
38 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
41 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
35 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
16 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
15 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
12 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
22 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
41 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
42 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
38 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
35 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
34 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
31 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
22 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
33 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
30 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
33 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
32 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
34 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
20 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
22 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
33 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
32 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
30 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
38 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
11 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
12 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
11 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
7 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
0.52 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
7 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
11 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
13 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
11 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
10 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
14 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
12 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
16 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
14 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
16 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
19 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
22 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
42 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
38 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
42 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
34 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
18 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
5 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
2 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
7 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
35 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
16 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
30 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
17 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
22 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
26 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
30 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
38 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
36 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
21 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
24 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
28 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
29 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
36 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
41 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
23 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
22 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
25 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
27 Score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Age Equivalent Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
33 Score on a scale
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 52Population: Substudy population included all participants enrolled and treated with investigational product in the substudy.
Participants who were younger than 3 years were assessed using the BSID-III. The BSID--III is a series of measurements to assess the motor (fine and gross), language (receptive and expressive), and cognitive development of infants and toddlers and consists of a series of developmental play tasks. Chronological age of the participants when assessed by the BSID-III scale was reported. Range 16.59 - 45.21 months. Participant wise data at evaluable timepoints was reported for this outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=9 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
30.03 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
30.03 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
45.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
16.59 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
16.59 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
21.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
21.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
23.72 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
23.72 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
26.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
26.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
29.14 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
29.14 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
30.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
30.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
42.35 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
28.29 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
33.97 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
26.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
36.99 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
36.99 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
35.12 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
35.12 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
37.88 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
37.88 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
40.87 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
40.87 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
43.56 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
36.99 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
39.33 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
39.33 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
43.56 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
35.68 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
35.68 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
35.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
29.31 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
29.31 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
32.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
32.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
31.44 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
31.44 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
37.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
37.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
39.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
39.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
42.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
42.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
45.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
35.91 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
35.91 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
38.90 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
38.90 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
41.49 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
41.49 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
30.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
30.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
34.00 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
34.00 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
37.16 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
37.16 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
40.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
40.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
28.29 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
28.29 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
33.97 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
33.97 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
36.99 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
36.99 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
39.33 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
39.33 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
35.68 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
35.68 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
31.44 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
31.44 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
37.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
37.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
39.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
39.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
42.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
42.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
45.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
45.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
16.59 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
16.59 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
21.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
21.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
23.72 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
23.72 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
26.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
26.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
29.14 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
29.14 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
30.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
30.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
35.12 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
35.12 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
37.88 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
37.88 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
40.87 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
40.87 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
43.56 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
43.56 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
35.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
35.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
42.35 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
42.35 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
26.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
26.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
30.03 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
30.03 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
33.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
33.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
36.11 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
36.11 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
38.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
38.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
29.31 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
29.31 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
32.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
32.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
35.91 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
35.91 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
38.90 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
38.90 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
41.49 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
41.49 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
30.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
30.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
34.00 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
34.00 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
37.16 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
37.16 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
40.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
40.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
28.29 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
28.29 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
33.97 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
33.97 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
38.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
38.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
29.31 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
32.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
35.91 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
38.90 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
41.49 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
30.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
34.00 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
37.16 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
40.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
35.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
42.35 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
42.35 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
26.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
26.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
39.33 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
35.68 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
42.32 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
31.44 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
37.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
39.92 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
42.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
30.03 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
45.21 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
33.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
16.59 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
36.11 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
38.64 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
21.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
23.72 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
26.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
29.14 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
30.09 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
35.12 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
37.88 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
40.87 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
43.56 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
35.61 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
39.82 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
33.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
33.25 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
36.11 Months
|
—
|
|
Chronological Age of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
36.11 Months
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 52Population: Substudy population included all participants enrolled and treated with investigational product in the substudy.
Participants who were younger than 3 years were assessed using the BSID-III. The BSID--III is a series of measurements to assess the motor (fine and gross), language (receptive and expressive), and cognitive development of infants and toddlers and consists of a series of developmental play tasks. The development quotient (DQ) is a means to express a neurodevelopmental/cognitive delay which will be computed as a ratio and expressed as a percentage using the age equivalent score divided by the age at testing (\[age-equivalent score/chronological age\] × 100; range: 0-100). Higher values present better outcomes. Participant wise data at evaluable timepoints was reported for this outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=9 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
97 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
116.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
97.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
85.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
68.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
86.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
66.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
71.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
65.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
73.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
63.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
73.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
95.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
81.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
85.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
60.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
50.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
72.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
57.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
91.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
63.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
58.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
82.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
97.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
81.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
57.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
82.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
66 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
82.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
52.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
86.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
64.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
96.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
89.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
72.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
77.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
61 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
63.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
61.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
76.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
61.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
86.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
83.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
81.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
73.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
68.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
68.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
81.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
53.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
82.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
95.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
85.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
67.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
53.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
109.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
77.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
96.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
90.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
118.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
94.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
71 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
83.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
81.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
74.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
85.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
66.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
66.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
71.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
87 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
87 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
95.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
77.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
82.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
73.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
95.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
68.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
89.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
69.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
93.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
60.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
85.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
72 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
88 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
80.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
75.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
85.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
72.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
82 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
72.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
91.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
77.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
84.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
77.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
81.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
62.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
59.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
67.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
55.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
53.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
64.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
64.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
62.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
67.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
67.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
55.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
67.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
56.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
59.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
73.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
83.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
68.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
68.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
58.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
70.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
80.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
75.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
66.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
89.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
35 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
38.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
29.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
18.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
1.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
17.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
25.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
30.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
24.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
22.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
84.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
72.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
90.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
75.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
80.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
59 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
93.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
71.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
82.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
65.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
63.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
69.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
45.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
65.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
47.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
66 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
44 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
58.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
43.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
50.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
81.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
73 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
105.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
95.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
99.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
80.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
68.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
19 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
83.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
6.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
84.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
21.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
96.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
44.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
77.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
44 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
75.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
79 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
83.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
97.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
86.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
69.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
82.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
78 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
69.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
84.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
73.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
75.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
71.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
68.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
64.5 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
90.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
96.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
73.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
72.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
62.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
65.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
61.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
72.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
99.6 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
92.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
105.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
85.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
79.7 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
76.9 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
71.3 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
66.1 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
62 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
81.4 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
103 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
99.2 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
|
Development Quotient (DQ) of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
83.8 Percentage of chronological age
|
—
|
SECONDARY outcome
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 52Population: Substudy population included all participants enrolled and treated with investigational product in the substudy.
Participants who were younger than 3 years were assessed using the BSID-III. The BSID--III is a series of measurements to assess the motor (fine and gross), language (receptive and expressive), and cognitive development of infants and toddlers and consists of a series of developmental play tasks. Raw scores are converted to scaled scores that are based on normed populations. Raw score ranges: Cognitive scale 0-91, Receptive communication 0-49, Expressive communication 0-48, Fine motor 0-66 and Gross motor 0-72. Higher values indicate better outcomes. Participant wise data at evaluable timepoints was reported for this outcome.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=9 Participants
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
|---|---|---|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
61 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
45 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
60 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
43 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
60 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
43 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
53 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
46 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
64 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Fine
|
44 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Motor-Gross
|
66 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
42 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
59 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
39 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
54 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
43 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
61 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
59 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Fine
|
42 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Motor-Gross
|
63 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
32 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
47 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
39 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
54 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
56 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
44 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
58 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Fine
|
39 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Motor-Gross
|
54 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
54 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
39 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
56 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
42 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
57 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
43 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
59 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Fine
|
43 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Motor-Gross
|
61 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
44 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
61 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
50 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
61 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Fine
|
48 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Motor-Gross
|
61 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
39 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
51 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
41 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
55 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
44 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
54 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
44 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
58 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Fine
|
47 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Motor-Gross
|
61 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
25 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
31 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
27 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
33 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
29 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
37 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
32 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
37 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
39 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Receptive
|
34 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
54 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
42 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Language-Expressive
|
38 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
21 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
22 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
52 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
45 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
57 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Fine
|
43 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Motor-Gross
|
56 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
51 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Motor-Gross
|
55 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Motor-Fine
|
45 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
24 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
21 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
29 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
24 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
26 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
24 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
32 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
23 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
42 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Language-Expressive
|
38 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
20 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
7 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
28 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
5 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
30 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
9 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
36 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
19 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Receptive
|
32 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Language-Expressive
|
21 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
60 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
30 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
66 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
71 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
78 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Cognitive
|
77 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
57 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
69 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
70 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Cognitive
|
69 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
63 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
64 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
69 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
69 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Cognitive
|
70 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
62 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
77 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Cognitive
|
79 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
62 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
67 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
65 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
69 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Cognitive
|
69 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
58 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
60 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
69 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Cognitive
|
64 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
63 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
68 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
68 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
67 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Cognitive
|
67 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
70 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
79 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 8: Cognitive
|
82 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
59 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
65 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
67 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
68 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 9: Cognitive
|
74 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Receptive
|
29 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 2: Language-Expressive
|
31 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
22 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
42 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
57 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
42 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
54 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
34 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
55 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
45 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
65 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Fine
|
47 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 1: Motor-Gross
|
57 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
28 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
31 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
37 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Receptive
|
31 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 3: Language-Expressive
|
34 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
24 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
31 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
34 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
35 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Receptive
|
30 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 4: Language-Expressive
|
40 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
14 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
14 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
14 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
9 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
2 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
9 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
14 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
16 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Receptive
|
14 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 5: Language-Expressive
|
12 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
16 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
14 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
21 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
19 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
21 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
17 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
28 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
23 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Receptive
|
27 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 6: Language-Expressive
|
24 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
21 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
27 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
18 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 16: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
29 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
20 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 28: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
31 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
20 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 40: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
30 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Receptive
|
21 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Week 52: Participant 7: Language-Expressive
|
28 score on a scale
|
—
|
|
Raw Scores of Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSID-III) Scale in Substudy Population
Baseline: Participant 8: Language-Receptive
|
31 score on a scale
|
—
|
Adverse Events
No IT Treatment
IT Treatment
Substudy
Serious adverse events
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 participants at risk
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=33 participants at risk
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
Substudy
n=9 participants at risk
Participants aged less than 3 years received Idursulfase-IT monthly once for 12 months along with Elaprase at a dose of 5 mg if aged \<= 8 months; 7.5 mg if aged \> 8 to 30 months and 10 mg if aged \> 30 months to 3 years.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Vascular disorders
Hypotension
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Vomiting
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Asthenia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device dislocation
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device failure
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device kink
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Fatigue
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Hyperthermia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Hypothermia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Implant site effusion
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Inflammation
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Pyrexia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Vascular complication associated with device
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Bacteraemia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Catheter site cellulitis
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Device related infection
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Implant site infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Influenza
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Meningitis bacterial
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pneumonia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Respiratory syncytial virus infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Stenotrophomonas infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Tonsillitis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Wound infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural nausea
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural vomiting
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Pseudomeningocele
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Wound dehiscence
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
CSF cell count increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Cerebrospinal fluid leakage
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Hypoxia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
Other adverse events
| Measure |
No IT Treatment
n=15 participants at risk
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received Elaprase therapy as standard of care for 12 months.
|
IT Treatment
n=33 participants at risk
Participants aged 3 to \< 18 years received IT injections of 10 mg Idursulfase-IT once monthly for 12 months through SOPH-A-PORT Mini S IDDD along with Elaprase.
|
Substudy
n=9 participants at risk
Participants aged less than 3 years received Idursulfase-IT monthly once for 12 months along with Elaprase at a dose of 5 mg if aged \<= 8 months; 7.5 mg if aged \> 8 to 30 months and 10 mg if aged \> 30 months to 3 years.
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
42.4%
14/33 • Number of events 15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
66.7%
6/9 • Number of events 8 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural hypotension
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Laceration
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural headache
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural hypertension
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural nausea
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Blood and lymphatic system disorders
Hypochromasia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Blood and lymphatic system disorders
Leukocytosis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Arthralgia
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Back pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Foot deformity
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Joint range of motion decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Joint stiffness
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Knee deformity
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Kyphosis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Muscle tightness
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Pain in extremity
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Spinal disorder
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Spondylolysis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Toe walking
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Trigger finger
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Diastolic hypertension
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 7 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Diastolic hypotension
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Hypotension
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Vascular disorders
Systolic hypertension
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Ear and labyrinth disorders
Motion sickness
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Ear and labyrinth disorders
Otorrhoea
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 11 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 7 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Eye disorders
Astigmatism
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Eye disorders
Conjunctivitis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Eye disorders
Excessive eye blinking
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal distension
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal pain upper
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Constipation
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Dental caries
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Diarrhoea
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
30.3%
10/33 • Number of events 20 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
77.8%
7/9 • Number of events 8 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Frequent bowel movements
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Perianal erythema
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Swollen tongue
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Teething
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Gastrointestinal disorders
Vomiting
|
20.0%
3/15 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
75.8%
25/33 • Number of events 72 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
88.9%
8/9 • Number of events 27 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Catheter site oedema
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Catheter site pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Catheter site swelling
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device breakage
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device component issue
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device dislocation
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device kink
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Device occlusion
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Discomfort
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Fatigue
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Gait disturbance
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Hyperthermia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Implant site effusion
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
18.2%
6/33 • Number of events 8 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Implant site pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Implant site swelling
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Irritability
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Medical device complication
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Medical device pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
3/9 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Puncture site pain
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Pyrexia
|
46.7%
7/15 • Number of events 10 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
57.6%
19/33 • Number of events 39 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
88.9%
8/9 • Number of events 17 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
General disorders
Vascular complication associated with device
|
20.0%
3/15 • Number of events 8 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
15.2%
5/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 7 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders
Congenital osteodystrophy
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Dilatation ventricular
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Sinus bradycardia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Sinus tachycardia
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 10 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Cardiac disorders
Tachycardia
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Immune system disorders
Allergy to animal
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Immune system disorders
Drug hypersensitivity
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Adenovirus infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Atypical pneumonia
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Ear infection
|
26.7%
4/15 • Number of events 7 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
27.3%
9/33 • Number of events 10 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
3/9 • Number of events 8 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Ear infection fungal
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Fungal infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Gastroenteritis
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Gastroenteritis viral
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
15.2%
5/33 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Gastrointestinal infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Hand-Foot-And-Mouth disease
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Influenza
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Localised infection
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Lower respiratory tract infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Metapneumovirus infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Nail infection
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Nasopharyngitis
|
33.3%
5/15 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
39.4%
13/33 • Number of events 22 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Otitis media
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Otitis media acute
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Periodontitis
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Pharyngitis streptococcal
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Respiratory tract infection
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Rhinitis
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Sinusitis
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Tinea infection
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Tinea pedis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Tonsillitis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Upper respiratory tract infection
|
20.0%
3/15 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
11/33 • Number of events 15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Viral pharyngitis
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Viral rash
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Infections and infestations
Viral upper respiratory tract infection
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Arthropod bite
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Contusion
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Excoriation
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Fall
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Head injury
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Incision site erythema
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Incision site oedema
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Incision site pain
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Infusion related reaction
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Procedural vomiting
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Pseudomeningocele
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Scar
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Thermal burn
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Wound secretion
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Alanine aminotransferase increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Albumin CSF increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Aspartate aminotransferase increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Bacterial test positive
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood alkaline phosphatase decreased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood calcium decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood pressure diastolic decreased
|
20.0%
3/15 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
24.2%
8/33 • Number of events 26 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 20 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood pressure diastolic increased
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
18.2%
6/33 • Number of events 10 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
3/9 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood pressure increased
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood pressure systolic decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
21.2%
7/33 • Number of events 20 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 18 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood pressure systolic increased
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
21.2%
7/33 • Number of events 20 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood thyroid stimulating hormone increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Blood triglycerides increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Body temperature decreased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
15.2%
5/33 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Body temperature increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
CSF cell count increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
3/9 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
CSF glucose decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
21.2%
7/33 • Number of events 9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
CSF mononuclear cell count increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
CSF pressure increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
CSF protein increased
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
15.2%
5/33 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
CSF white blood cell count increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Cardiac murmur
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Coagulation time prolonged
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Electrocardiogram QT prolonged
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Eosinophil count increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
15.2%
5/33 • Number of events 7 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Eosinophil percentage increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Gamma-Glutamyltransferase increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Haematocrit decreased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Haemoglobin decreased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Heart rate decreased
|
20.0%
3/15 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
21.2%
7/33 • Number of events 25 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 17 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Heart rate increased
|
26.7%
4/15 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
21.2%
7/33 • Number of events 17 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Lymphocyte count increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Mean cell volume decreased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Monocyte count increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Neutrophil count increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging abnormal
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging brain abnormal
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Oxygen saturation decreased
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 13 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Platelet count decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Protein total decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Red blood cell count decreased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Red blood cells CSF positive
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Respiratory rate decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Respiratory rate increased
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
Urine leukocyte esterase positive
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
White blood cell count decreased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
White blood cell count increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
White blood cells urine positive
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Investigations
X-Ray abnormal
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Polyuria
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Renal and urinary disorders
Proteinuria
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Hepatobiliary disorders
Hepatomegaly
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Decreased appetite
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
3/9 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Iron deficiency
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Carpal tunnel syndrome
|
20.0%
3/15 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Cerebrospinal fluid leakage
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Drooling
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Headache
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
36.4%
12/33 • Number of events 23 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
3/9 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Intracranial pressure increased
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Lethargy
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
22.2%
2/9 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Psychomotor hyperactivity
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
15.2%
5/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Nervous system disorders
Subdural effusion
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Abnormal behaviour
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Affect lability
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Aggression
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
12.1%
4/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Agitation
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Anxiety
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Communication disorder
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Dysphemia
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Impulsive behaviour
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Insomnia
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Self injurious behaviour
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Sleep disorder
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Psychiatric disorders
Social avoidant behaviour
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Atelectasis
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Cough
|
26.7%
4/15 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
45.5%
15/33 • Number of events 33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 8 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Epistaxis
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Hiccups
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 6 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Interstitial lung disease
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Nasal congestion
|
20.0%
3/15 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
21.2%
7/33 • Number of events 10 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
44.4%
4/9 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Oropharyngeal pain
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Pulmonary congestion
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Rhinorrhoea
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
24.2%
8/33 • Number of events 10 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
33.3%
3/9 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders
Wheezing
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Blister
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermatitis allergic
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermatitis contact
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dermatitis diaper
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
9.1%
3/33 • Number of events 4 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Dry skin
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Erythema
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Generalised erythema
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Rash
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
15.2%
5/33 • Number of events 5 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Rash erythematous
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Rash generalised
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Rash maculo-papular
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Rash papular
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Red man syndrome
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Scab
|
0.00%
0/15 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
6.1%
2/33 • Number of events 2 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Skin irritation
|
6.7%
1/15 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/33 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
0.00%
0/9 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
|
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Urticaria
|
13.3%
2/15 • Number of events 3 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
3.0%
1/33 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
11.1%
1/9 • Number of events 1 • From start of study treatment up to Week 53
For IT Treatment group 34 participants were randomized but only 33 participants are part of the safety population as 1 participant discontinued the study without receiving study treatment.
|
Additional Information
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee If a multicenter publication is not submitted within twelve (12) months after conclusion, abandonmentor termination of the Study at all sites, or after Sponsor confirms there shall be no multicenter Study publication, the Institution and/or such Principal Investigator may publish the results from the Institution site individually.
- Publication restrictions are in place
Restriction type: OTHER