P05495
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Design, Dose-Range Finding Study of Subcutaneous SCH 900222 in Subjects with Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Plaque Psoriasis
IRAS ID
49370
Contact name
Jonathan Barker
Sponsor organisation
Schering-Plough Research Institute, a Division of Schering Corporation
Eudract number
2009-017272-24
ISRCTN Number
N/A
Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier
N/A
Research summary
This is a randomised double-blind placebo controlled study looking at the safety and efficacy of different doses of SCH 900222 versus placebo in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. The study consists of 19 study visits over approximately 18 months. Participants will be asked to attend for the following visits at the hospital: Screening, Baseline (Week 0) and at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52, 56, 60, 64, 68 and 72After a screening/washout period of up to 4 weeks, eligible Patients will be randomised in a 1:2:2:2:1 ratio to one of four SCH 900222 treatment groups or placebo at Weeks 0 and 4. They will receive 3 sc injections per visit in order to maintain the blind. Depending on the improvement in psoriasis after 16 weeks, participants will be go onto a maintenance schedule and be given 1 of 3 possible doses; a lower dose, the same dose or a higher dose of SCH 900222 at weeks 16, 28, 40, and 52. Responders at week 16 will continue to receive 3 sc injections per visit in Part 2 and non-responders will receive 2 sc injections per visit. At Week 28 non-responding participants will be discontinued from the trial. All participants will be asked to continue to attend the clinic for follow up evaluations every 4 weeks for a further 20 weeks following their last injection. Study evaluations will include medical and drug history, ECG, TB testing Chest X-ray, blood tests, pregnancy tests, skin evaluations and questionnaires.
REC name
South Central - Oxford C Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
10/H0606/62
Date of REC Opinion
28 Oct 2010
REC opinion
Further Information Favourable Opinion