Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 23;38(5):2339–2352. doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01660-7

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

IBDQ improvements with upadacitinib. a IBDQ response. b IBDQ remission. c Change in IBDQ total score. *P ≤ 0.1 vs. placebo. **P ≤ 0.05 vs. placebo. ***P ≤ 0.01 vs placebo. P ≤ 0.1 vs UPA 3 mg BID. ††P ≤ 0.05 vs. UPA 3 mg BID. IBDQ response and remission for induction period used the mITT population and LOCF, with P values calculated based on Cochran-Mantel–Haenszel test stratified by baseline SES-CD. IBDQ response and remission for maintenance period used the ITT population and OC, with period P values calculated based on Chi-square test (or Fischer’s exact test if ≥ 20% of the cells had expected cell count < 5). Change in IBDQ score for induction period used the mITT population and LOCF, and was analyzed using ANCOVA, adjusting for treatment, baseline disease severity, and baseline value. Change in IBDQ score for maintenance period used the ITT population and OC, and was analyzed using ANCOVA, adjusting for treatment and baseline value. ANCOVA analysis of covariance; BID twice daily; BL baseline; IBDQ Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire; ITT intent-to-treat; LOCF last observation carried forward; mITT modified intent-to-treat; OC observed cases; QD once daily; SES-CD Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease; UPA upadacitinib