search
Back to results

A Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of ASP015K in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Who Had an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate (MTX) Treatment

Primary Purpose

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Status
Completed
Phase
Phase 3
Locations
Japan
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
Peficitinib
Placebo
Methotrexate
Sponsored by
Astellas Pharma Inc
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Rheumatoid Arthritis focused on measuring ASP015K, Rheumatoid Arthritis

Eligibility Criteria

20 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Subject has RA of < 10 years duration at baseline that was diagnosed according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria or the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria
  • Subject who did not receive the following drugs, or received the drugs with stable dosage for at least 28 days prior to the baseline (start of treatment) for RA treatment:

    • Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; excluding topical formulations with a local action), oral morphine or equivalent opioid analgesics (≤ 30 mg/day), acetaminophen, or oral corticosteroids (≤ 10 mg/day in prednisolone equivalent)
  • At screening subject has active RA as evidenced by both of the following:

    • ≥ 6 tender/painful joints (using 68-joint assessment)
    • ≥ 6 swollen joints (using 66-joint assessment)
  • CRP (latex agglutination test) of ≥ 1.00 mg/dL at screening.
  • Subject meets the ACR 1991 Revised Criteria for the Classification of Global Functional Status in RA Class I, II or, III at screening
  • Inadequate responders to MTX which was continuously administered for at least 90 days prior to screening and MTX ≥ 8 mg/week for at least 28 days prior to baseline. However, inadequate responder to MTX < 8 mg/week is eligible if intolerance precludes dose increase and defined as MTX-IR
  • Subject is able to continue stable dose of MTX (a maximum of 16 mg/week) from at least 28 days prior to screening until the end of treatment
  • Subject has bone erosion at the joint (as evidenced by x-rays of hands and feet) assessed in mTSS and any of the following apply at screening. Bone erosion may be evidenced by x-rays within 90 days prior to baseline.

    • Positive anti-CCP antibody: ≥ 4.5 U/mL
    • Positive rheumatoid factor: > 15 IU/mL

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Subject has received a biologic DMARD within the specified period
  • Inadequate responders to biologic DMARD as determined by investigator/sub-investigator
  • Subject has received intra-articular, intravenous, intramuscular or endorectal (excluding suppositories for anal diseases) corticosteroid within 28 days prior to baseline
  • Subject has participated in any study of ASP015K and has received ASP015K or placebo
  • Subject has received other investigational drugs within 90 days or within 5 half-lives, whichever is longer, prior to baseline
  • Subject has received plasma exchange therapy within 60 days prior to baseline
  • Subject has undergone joint drainage, has received local anesthesia and nerve block, or has received articular cartilage protectant at the assessed joint within 28 days prior to baseline
  • Subject has undergone surgery and has residual effects in the assessed joints at the discretion of investigator/sub-investigator, or is scheduled to undergo surgery that may affect the study evaluation of the assessed joints at the discretion of investigator/sub-investigator
  • A diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis (psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, SLE, sarcoidosis, etc.) other than RA
  • Any of the following laboratory values at screening:

    • Hemoglobin < 9.0 g/dL
    • Absolute neutrophil count < 1000/μL
    • Absolute lymphocyte count < 800/μL
    • Platelet count < 75000/μL
    • ALT ≥ 2 ×ULN
    • AST ≥ 2 × ULN
    • Total bilirubin (TBL) ≥ 1.5 × ULN
    • Estimated GFR ≤ 40 mL/min as measured by the MDRD method
    • β-D-glucan ≥ 11 pg/mL
    • Positive HBs antigen, HBc antibody, HBs antibody or HBV-DNA quantitation (However, subject with negative HBs antigen and HBV-DNA quantitation, and positive HBc antibody and/or HBs antibody is eligible if HBV-DNA is monitored by HBV-DNA quantitation at every scheduled visit after initiation of study drug administration.)
    • Positive HCV antibody
  • Subject has a history of or concurrent active tuberculosis (TB)
  • Subject has a history of or concurrent interstitial pneumonia and investigator/sub-investigator judges that it is inappropriate for the subject to participate in this study
  • Subject has a history of or concurrent malignant tumor (except for successfully treated basal cell carcinoma)
  • Subject has received live or live attenuated virus vaccination within 56 days prior to baseline. (Inactivated vaccines including influenza and pneumococcal vaccines are allowed.)
  • Subject has any ongoing severe, progressive, or uncontrolled renal, hepatic, hematological, gastrointestinal, metabolic, endocrine, pulmonary, cardiac, neurological, infectious, or autoimmune disease except for RA (excluding Sjogren's syndrome and chronic thyroiditis), or any ongoing illness which would make the subject unsuitable for the study as determined by the investigator/sub-investigator
  • Subject has a history of clinically significant allergy. (Clinically significant allergy includes allergies such as systemic urticaria induced by specific antigens and drugs, anaphylaxis, and allergy associated with shock necessitating hospitalized treatment.)
  • Subject has concurrent cardiac failure, defined as NYHA classification Class III or higher, or a history of it
  • Subject has concurrent prolonged QT syndrome or a history of it. Subject has prolonged QT interval (defined as QTc ≥ 500 msec. Subject has QTc ≥ 500 msec at retest will be excluded) at screening
  • Subject has a history of positive HIV infection
  • Subject has congenital short QT syndrome or a history of it. Subject has shortened QT interval (defined as QTc < 330 msec. Subject has QTc < 330 msec at retest will be excluded) at screening.

Sites / Locations

  • JP00037
  • JP00109
  • JP00130
  • JP00175
  • JP00066
  • JP00108
  • JP00170
  • JP00156
  • JP00068
  • JP00180
  • JP00166
  • JP00115
  • JP00138
  • JP00120
  • JP00110
  • JP00040
  • JP00119
  • JP00071
  • JP00106
  • JP00033
  • JP00163
  • JP00124
  • JP00026
  • JP00090
  • JP00172
  • JP00125
  • JP00001
  • JP00002
  • JP00003
  • JP00038
  • JP00114
  • JP00056
  • JP00069
  • JP00136
  • JP00113
  • JP00041
  • JP00042
  • JP00092
  • JP00154
  • JP00171
  • JP00117
  • JP00181
  • JP00107
  • JP00073
  • JP00054
  • JP00039
  • JP00179
  • JP00049
  • JP00088
  • JP00084
  • JP00048
  • JP00058
  • JP00141
  • JP00096
  • JP00045
  • JP00019
  • JP00057
  • JP00168
  • JP00169
  • JP00004
  • JP00036
  • JP00105
  • JP00151
  • JP00050
  • JP00129
  • JP00162
  • JP00101
  • JP00103
  • JP00153
  • JP00094
  • JP00025
  • JP00144
  • JP00064
  • JP00051
  • JP00011
  • JP00134
  • JP00178
  • JP00078
  • JP00137
  • JP00070
  • JP00146
  • JP00061
  • JP00075
  • JP00126
  • JP00007
  • JP00060
  • JP00161
  • JP00062
  • JP00052
  • JP00008
  • JP00133
  • JP00077
  • JP00145
  • JP00024
  • JP00143
  • JP00149
  • JP00152
  • JP00099
  • JP00142
  • JP00063
  • JP00053
  • JP00072
  • JP00148
  • JP00081
  • JP00010
  • JP00155
  • JP00104
  • JP00047
  • JP00176
  • JP00018
  • JP00020
  • JP00035
  • JP00059
  • JP00067
  • JP00076
  • JP00131
  • JP00164
  • JP00165
  • JP00013
  • JP00014
  • JP00016
  • JP00055
  • JP00074
  • JP00167
  • JP00093
  • JP00022
  • JP00046
  • JP00085
  • JP00123
  • JP00160
  • JP00023
  • JP00122
  • JP00080
  • JP00174
  • JP00098
  • JP00112
  • JP00147
  • JP00017
  • JP00118
  • JP00150
  • JP00157
  • JP00177
  • JP00044
  • JP00089
  • JP00135
  • JP00139

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm 3

Arm Type

Experimental

Experimental

Placebo Comparator

Arm Label

Peficitinib 100 mg

Peficitinib 150 mg

Placebo

Arm Description

Participants received 100 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX for a period of 52 weeks.

Participants received 150 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX for a period of 52 weeks.

Participants who received placebo matching to peficitinib 100 mg or 150 mg orally once daily in combination with MTX until week 12 or 28 were switched to receive 100 mg or 150 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX from week 12 or 28 to week 52.

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Percentage of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) C-Reactive Protein (CRP) Response at Week 12
ACR20 response: greater than and equal to (≥) 20 percent (%) improvement in tender and swollen joint count; and ≥ 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional disability via a health assessment questionnaire, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Change From Baseline in mTSS at Week 28
mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). Change from baseline was calculated as score at week 28 (ET) minus score at baseline. An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Percentage of Participants With an ACR20-CRP Response Through Week 52
ACR20 response:≥ 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint count; and ≥ 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional disability via a health assessment questionnaire, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit. EOT was defined as end of treatment i.e, either early termination or week 52.
Percentage of Participants With an ACR50-CRP Response at Week 12
ACR50 response: ≥50% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 50% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Percentage of Participants With an ACR50-CRP Response Through Week 52
ACR50 response: ≥50% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 50% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Percentage of Participants With an ACR70-CRP Response at Week 12
ACR70 response: ≥ 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 70% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Percentage of Participants With an ACR70-CRP Response Through Week 52
ACR70 response: ≥ 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 70% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Change From Baseline in mTSS at Week 52
mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). Change from baseline was calculated as score at week 52 (ET) minus score at baseline. An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.
Change From Baseline in JSN Score at Week 28 and Week 52
JSN was defined as narrowing in joint space width over the course of the study. The JSN score summarizes the severity of JSN in 30 joints of the hands and 12 joints of the feet. JSN, including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. Higher scores indicate greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in Erosion Score at Week 28 and Week 52
The joint erosion score was a summary of erosion severity in 32 joints of the hands and 12 joints of the feet. Each joint in the hand is scored from 0-5 and each joint in the foot is scored from 0-10. The score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet. By summing these score, the range of total erosion score is 0-280. Higher erosion score indicates greater disease activity.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Change From Baseline in mTSS <= 0.5 at Week 28 and Week 52
mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28-CRP at Week 12
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in DAS28-CRP Through Week 52
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in DAS28-ESR at Week 12
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in DAS28-ESR Score Through Week 52
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in TJC (68 Joints) at Week 12
The participants were examined for the tender joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 68 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher TJC indicated greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in TJC (68 Joints) Through Week 52
The participants were examined for the tender joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 68 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher TJC indicated greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in SJC (66 Joints) at Week 12
The participants were examined for the swollen joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 66 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher SJC indicated greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in SJC (66 Joints) Through Week 52
The participants were examined for the swollen joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 66 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher SJC indicated greater disease activity.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score < 2.6 at Week 12
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score < 2.6 Through Week 52
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score < 2.6 at Week 12
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score < 2.6 Through Week 52
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score <= 3.2 at Week 12
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score <= 3.2 Through Week 52
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score <= 3.2 at Week 12
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score <= 3.2 Through Week 52
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Change From Baseline in CRP at Week 12
Higher CRP indicates greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in CRP Through Week 52
Higher CRP indicates greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in ESR at Week 12
Higher ESR indicates greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in ESR Through Week 52
Higher ESR indicates greater disease activity.
Percentage of Participants With a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Good Response Using DAS28-CRP at Week 12
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-CRP Through Week 52
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With a Good or Moderate EULAR Response Using DAS28-CRP at Week 12
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With a Good or Moderate EULAR Response Using DAS28-CRP Through Week 52
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-ESR at Week 12
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in the outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-ESR Through Week 52
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good or Moderate Response Using DAS28-ESR at Week 12
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good or Moderate Response Using DAS28-ESR Through Week 52
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR / EULAR Remission at Week 12
ACR/EULAR Remission was defined as TJC (68 joints) ≤ 1, SJC (66 joints) ≤1, CRP ≤1 mg/dL, and participant's global assessment of arthritis ≤ 1 cm (on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 - 100 mm).
Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR / EULAR Remission Through Week 52
ACR/EULAR Remission was defined as TJC (68 joints) ≤ 1, SJC (66 joints) ≤1, CRP ≤1 mg/dL, and participant's global assessment of arthritis ≤ 1 cm (on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 - 100 mm).
Percentage of Participants Achieving Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) Remission <=3.3 at Week 12
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description. SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. SDAI Remission was defined as SDAI score ≤ 3.3.
Percentage of Participants Achieving SDAI Remission Score <=3.3 Through Week 52
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description. SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. SDAI Remission was defined as SDAI score ≤ 3.3.
Change From Baseline in SDAI Score at Week 12
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description: SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. The SDAI score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. Higher SDAI indicates greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in SDAI Score Through Week 52
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description: SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. The SDAI score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. Higher SDAI indicates greater disease activity.
Change From Baseline in PGA at Week 12
The investigator assessed the participants' disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the physician assessment table. Higher PGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Change From Baseline in PGA Through Week 52
The investigator assessed the participants disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the physician assessment table. Higher PGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Change From Baseline in SGA at Week 12
The participant assessed his/her own disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Change From Baseline in SGA Through Week 52
The participant assessed his/her own disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Change From Baseline in SGAP at Week 12
The participant assessed his/her own pain severity on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) scores indicated greater activity pain.
Change From Baseline in SGAP Through Week 52
The participant assessed his/her own pain severity on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) scores indicated greater activity pain.
Number of Participants Who Withdrew Due to Lack of Efficacy
Participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy have been reported.
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 12
Participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item was scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Through Week 52
Participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item was scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.
Change From Baseline in Short Form Health Survey - 36 Questions, Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical Component Summary Score at Week 12
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary Score Through Week 52
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Mental Component Summary Score at Week 12
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Mental Component Summary Score Through Week 52
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Role/Social Component Summary Score at Week 12
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Role/Social Component Summary Score Through Week 52
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) Percent Work Time Missed at Week 12
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent work time missed due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4). Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Work Time Missed Through Week 52
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent work time missed due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4). Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Impairment While Working at Week 12
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent impairment while working due to problem was calculated as Q5/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Impairment While Working Through Week 52
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent impairment while working due to problem was calculates as Q5/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Change From Baseline in Percent Overall Work Impairment at Week 12
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent overall work impairment due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4)+[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)]. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Overall Work Impairment Through Week 52
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent overall work impairment due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4)+[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)]. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Activity Impairment at Week 12
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work) and a 1-week recall period. Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent activity impairment due to problem was calculated as Q6/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Activity Impairment Through Week 52
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work) and a 1-week recall period. Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent activity impairment due to problem was calculated as Q6/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) During the First 12 Weeks
TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Term (PT). Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE.
Number of Participants With TEAEs From Week 12 to Week 28
TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by SOC and PT. Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on NCI-CTCAE, AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE
Number of Participants With TEAEs From Week 28 to Week 52
TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by SOC and PT. Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE.

Full Information

First Posted
December 1, 2014
Last Updated
July 16, 2020
Sponsor
Astellas Pharma Inc
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT02305849
Brief Title
A Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of ASP015K in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Who Had an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate (MTX) Treatment
Official Title
Phase 3 Study of ASP015K - A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Confirmatory Study of the Efficacy and Safety of ASP015K in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Had an Inadequate Response to MTX
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
June 2020
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
July 25, 2014 (Actual)
Primary Completion Date
June 20, 2017 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
November 28, 2017 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
Astellas Pharma Inc

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
Yes
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.
Yes
Data Monitoring Committee
Yes

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The objective of this study was to verify the efficacy of ASP015K versus placebo administrated in combination with methotrexate (MTX) over placebo in terms of efficacy in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to MTX
Detailed Description
This study was a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, confirmatory study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ASP015K (100 and 150 mg/day) administered in combination with MTX in participants with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX. Participants orally received ASP015K 100 mg, ASP015K 150 mg or placebo once daily (QD) in combination with MTX after breakfast for 52 weeks. At Week 12, inadequate responders in the placebo group, as determined by a < 20% improvement from baseline (i.e., treatment initiation day) in tender or painful joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC), were switched to either ASP015K 100 mg or ASP015K 150 mg, and the dosage was maintained until the end of treatment (EOT). In addition, participants who received placebo at Week 28 were switched to either ASP015K 100 mg or ASP015K 150 mg, and the dosage was maintained until the EOT. The ASP015K dose that was started for placebo group participants at Week 12 or Week 28 was randomly chosen at baseline. The dose was switched under the blinded condition. Participants who completed this study were eligible for participation in the open-label extension study (015K-CL-RAJ2). Participants made a follow-up visit after the week 52 visit if they did not enroll into the extension study on the day of the week 52 visit.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Keywords
ASP015K, Rheumatoid Arthritis

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Phase 3
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
ParticipantCare ProviderInvestigatorOutcomes Assessor
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
519 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
Peficitinib 100 mg
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants received 100 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX for a period of 52 weeks.
Arm Title
Peficitinib 150 mg
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
Participants received 150 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX for a period of 52 weeks.
Arm Title
Placebo
Arm Type
Placebo Comparator
Arm Description
Participants who received placebo matching to peficitinib 100 mg or 150 mg orally once daily in combination with MTX until week 12 or 28 were switched to receive 100 mg or 150 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX from week 12 or 28 to week 52.
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Peficitinib
Other Intervention Name(s)
ASP015K
Intervention Description
oral tablet
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Placebo
Intervention Description
oral tablet
Intervention Type
Drug
Intervention Name(s)
Methotrexate
Intervention Description
Oral tablet/capsule
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) C-Reactive Protein (CRP) Response at Week 12
Description
ACR20 response: greater than and equal to (≥) 20 percent (%) improvement in tender and swollen joint count; and ≥ 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional disability via a health assessment questionnaire, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/Early termination (ET)
Title
Change From Baseline in mTSS at Week 28
Description
mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). Change from baseline was calculated as score at week 28 (ET) minus score at baseline. An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 28/ET
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage of Participants With an ACR20-CRP Response Through Week 52
Description
ACR20 response:≥ 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint count; and ≥ 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional disability via a health assessment questionnaire, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit. EOT was defined as end of treatment i.e, either early termination or week 52.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants With an ACR50-CRP Response at Week 12
Description
ACR50 response: ≥50% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 50% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants With an ACR50-CRP Response Through Week 52
Description
ACR50 response: ≥50% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 50% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants With an ACR70-CRP Response at Week 12
Description
ACR70 response: ≥ 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 70% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants With an ACR70-CRP Response Through Week 52
Description
ACR70 response: ≥ 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 70% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in mTSS at Week 52
Description
mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). Change from baseline was calculated as score at week 52 (ET) minus score at baseline. An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 52/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in JSN Score at Week 28 and Week 52
Description
JSN was defined as narrowing in joint space width over the course of the study. The JSN score summarizes the severity of JSN in 30 joints of the hands and 12 joints of the feet. JSN, including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. Higher scores indicate greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and weeks 28/ET and 52/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in Erosion Score at Week 28 and Week 52
Description
The joint erosion score was a summary of erosion severity in 32 joints of the hands and 12 joints of the feet. Each joint in the hand is scored from 0-5 and each joint in the foot is scored from 0-10. The score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet. By summing these score, the range of total erosion score is 0-280. Higher erosion score indicates greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and weeks 28/ET and 52/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving Change From Baseline in mTSS <= 0.5 at Week 28 and Week 52
Description
mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 28/ET and 52/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28-CRP at Week 12
Description
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in DAS28-CRP Through Week 52
Description
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in DAS28-ESR at Week 12
Description
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in DAS28-ESR Score Through Week 52
Description
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in TJC (68 Joints) at Week 12
Description
The participants were examined for the tender joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 68 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher TJC indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in TJC (68 Joints) Through Week 52
Description
The participants were examined for the tender joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 68 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher TJC indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in SJC (66 Joints) at Week 12
Description
The participants were examined for the swollen joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 66 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher SJC indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in SJC (66 Joints) Through Week 52
Description
The participants were examined for the swollen joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 66 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher SJC indicated greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score < 2.6 at Week 12
Description
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score < 2.6 Through Week 52
Description
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score < 2.6 at Week 12
Description
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score < 2.6 Through Week 52
Description
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score <= 3.2 at Week 12
Description
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score <= 3.2 Through Week 52
Description
DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score <= 3.2 at Week 12
Description
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score <= 3.2 Through Week 52
Description
DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in CRP at Week 12
Description
Higher CRP indicates greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in CRP Through Week 52
Description
Higher CRP indicates greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in ESR at Week 12
Description
Higher ESR indicates greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in ESR Through Week 52
Description
Higher ESR indicates greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants With a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Good Response Using DAS28-CRP at Week 12
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-CRP Through Week 52
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants With a Good or Moderate EULAR Response Using DAS28-CRP at Week 12
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants With a Good or Moderate EULAR Response Using DAS28-CRP Through Week 52
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-ESR at Week 12
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in the outcome measure.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-ESR Through Week 52
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good or Moderate Response Using DAS28-ESR at Week 12
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good or Moderate Response Using DAS28-ESR Through Week 52
Description
The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR / EULAR Remission at Week 12
Description
ACR/EULAR Remission was defined as TJC (68 joints) ≤ 1, SJC (66 joints) ≤1, CRP ≤1 mg/dL, and participant's global assessment of arthritis ≤ 1 cm (on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 - 100 mm).
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR / EULAR Remission Through Week 52
Description
ACR/EULAR Remission was defined as TJC (68 joints) ≤ 1, SJC (66 joints) ≤1, CRP ≤1 mg/dL, and participant's global assessment of arthritis ≤ 1 cm (on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 - 100 mm).
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) Remission <=3.3 at Week 12
Description
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description. SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. SDAI Remission was defined as SDAI score ≤ 3.3.
Time Frame
Week 12/ET
Title
Percentage of Participants Achieving SDAI Remission Score <=3.3 Through Week 52
Description
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description. SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. SDAI Remission was defined as SDAI score ≤ 3.3.
Time Frame
Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in SDAI Score at Week 12
Description
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description: SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. The SDAI score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. Higher SDAI indicates greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in SDAI Score Through Week 52
Description
SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description: SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. The SDAI score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. Higher SDAI indicates greater disease activity.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in PGA at Week 12
Description
The investigator assessed the participants' disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the physician assessment table. Higher PGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in PGA Through Week 52
Description
The investigator assessed the participants disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the physician assessment table. Higher PGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in SGA at Week 12
Description
The participant assessed his/her own disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in SGA Through Week 52
Description
The participant assessed his/her own disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in SGAP at Week 12
Description
The participant assessed his/her own pain severity on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) scores indicated greater activity pain.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in SGAP Through Week 52
Description
The participant assessed his/her own pain severity on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) scores indicated greater activity pain.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Number of Participants Who Withdrew Due to Lack of Efficacy
Description
Participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy have been reported.
Time Frame
Up to week 52
Title
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 12
Description
Participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item was scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Through Week 52
Description
Participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item was scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in Short Form Health Survey - 36 Questions, Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical Component Summary Score at Week 12
Description
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary Score Through Week 52
Description
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Mental Component Summary Score at Week 12
Description
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Mental Component Summary Score Through Week 52
Description
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Role/Social Component Summary Score at Week 12
Description
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Role/Social Component Summary Score Through Week 52
Description
The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) Percent Work Time Missed at Week 12
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent work time missed due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4). Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Work Time Missed Through Week 52
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent work time missed due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4). Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Impairment While Working at Week 12
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent impairment while working due to problem was calculated as Q5/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Impairment While Working Through Week 52
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent impairment while working due to problem was calculates as Q5/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in Percent Overall Work Impairment at Week 12
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent overall work impairment due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4)+[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)]. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Overall Work Impairment Through Week 52
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent overall work impairment due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4)+[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)]. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT
Title
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Activity Impairment at Week 12
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work) and a 1-week recall period. Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent activity impairment due to problem was calculated as Q6/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline and week 12/ET
Title
Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Activity Impairment Through Week 52
Description
WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work) and a 1-week recall period. Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent activity impairment due to problem was calculated as Q6/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.
Time Frame
Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT
Title
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) During the First 12 Weeks
Description
TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Term (PT). Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE.
Time Frame
Week 0 to week 12
Title
Number of Participants With TEAEs From Week 12 to Week 28
Description
TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by SOC and PT. Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on NCI-CTCAE, AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE
Time Frame
Week 12 to week 28
Title
Number of Participants With TEAEs From Week 28 to Week 52
Description
TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by SOC and PT. Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE.
Time Frame
Week 28 to week 52, plus 28 days after the week 52 visit for participants who did not enroll in the extension study

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
20 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Subject has RA of < 10 years duration at baseline that was diagnosed according to the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria or the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria Subject who did not receive the following drugs, or received the drugs with stable dosage for at least 28 days prior to the baseline (start of treatment) for RA treatment: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; excluding topical formulations with a local action), oral morphine or equivalent opioid analgesics (≤ 30 mg/day), acetaminophen, or oral corticosteroids (≤ 10 mg/day in prednisolone equivalent) At screening subject has active RA as evidenced by both of the following: ≥ 6 tender/painful joints (using 68-joint assessment) ≥ 6 swollen joints (using 66-joint assessment) CRP (latex agglutination test) of ≥ 1.00 mg/dL at screening. Subject meets the ACR 1991 Revised Criteria for the Classification of Global Functional Status in RA Class I, II or, III at screening Inadequate responders to MTX which was continuously administered for at least 90 days prior to screening and MTX ≥ 8 mg/week for at least 28 days prior to baseline. However, inadequate responder to MTX < 8 mg/week is eligible if intolerance precludes dose increase and defined as MTX-IR Subject is able to continue stable dose of MTX (a maximum of 16 mg/week) from at least 28 days prior to screening until the end of treatment Subject has bone erosion at the joint (as evidenced by x-rays of hands and feet) assessed in mTSS and any of the following apply at screening. Bone erosion may be evidenced by x-rays within 90 days prior to baseline. Positive anti-CCP antibody: ≥ 4.5 U/mL Positive rheumatoid factor: > 15 IU/mL Exclusion Criteria: Subject has received a biologic DMARD within the specified period Inadequate responders to biologic DMARD as determined by investigator/sub-investigator Subject has received intra-articular, intravenous, intramuscular or endorectal (excluding suppositories for anal diseases) corticosteroid within 28 days prior to baseline Subject has participated in any study of ASP015K and has received ASP015K or placebo Subject has received other investigational drugs within 90 days or within 5 half-lives, whichever is longer, prior to baseline Subject has received plasma exchange therapy within 60 days prior to baseline Subject has undergone joint drainage, has received local anesthesia and nerve block, or has received articular cartilage protectant at the assessed joint within 28 days prior to baseline Subject has undergone surgery and has residual effects in the assessed joints at the discretion of investigator/sub-investigator, or is scheduled to undergo surgery that may affect the study evaluation of the assessed joints at the discretion of investigator/sub-investigator A diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis (psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, SLE, sarcoidosis, etc.) other than RA Any of the following laboratory values at screening: Hemoglobin < 9.0 g/dL Absolute neutrophil count < 1000/μL Absolute lymphocyte count < 800/μL Platelet count < 75000/μL ALT ≥ 2 ×ULN AST ≥ 2 × ULN Total bilirubin (TBL) ≥ 1.5 × ULN Estimated GFR ≤ 40 mL/min as measured by the MDRD method β-D-glucan ≥ 11 pg/mL Positive HBs antigen, HBc antibody, HBs antibody or HBV-DNA quantitation (However, subject with negative HBs antigen and HBV-DNA quantitation, and positive HBc antibody and/or HBs antibody is eligible if HBV-DNA is monitored by HBV-DNA quantitation at every scheduled visit after initiation of study drug administration.) Positive HCV antibody Subject has a history of or concurrent active tuberculosis (TB) Subject has a history of or concurrent interstitial pneumonia and investigator/sub-investigator judges that it is inappropriate for the subject to participate in this study Subject has a history of or concurrent malignant tumor (except for successfully treated basal cell carcinoma) Subject has received live or live attenuated virus vaccination within 56 days prior to baseline. (Inactivated vaccines including influenza and pneumococcal vaccines are allowed.) Subject has any ongoing severe, progressive, or uncontrolled renal, hepatic, hematological, gastrointestinal, metabolic, endocrine, pulmonary, cardiac, neurological, infectious, or autoimmune disease except for RA (excluding Sjogren's syndrome and chronic thyroiditis), or any ongoing illness which would make the subject unsuitable for the study as determined by the investigator/sub-investigator Subject has a history of clinically significant allergy. (Clinically significant allergy includes allergies such as systemic urticaria induced by specific antigens and drugs, anaphylaxis, and allergy associated with shock necessitating hospitalized treatment.) Subject has concurrent cardiac failure, defined as NYHA classification Class III or higher, or a history of it Subject has concurrent prolonged QT syndrome or a history of it. Subject has prolonged QT interval (defined as QTc ≥ 500 msec. Subject has QTc ≥ 500 msec at retest will be excluded) at screening Subject has a history of positive HIV infection Subject has congenital short QT syndrome or a history of it. Subject has shortened QT interval (defined as QTc < 330 msec. Subject has QTc < 330 msec at retest will be excluded) at screening.
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Medical Director
Organizational Affiliation
Astellas Pharma Inc
Official's Role
Study Director
Facility Information:
Facility Name
JP00037
City
Nagoya
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00109
City
Nagoya
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00130
City
Nagoya
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00175
City
Nagoya
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00066
City
Okazaki
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00108
City
Toyohashi
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00170
City
Toyohashi
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00156
City
Toyota
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00068
City
Yatomi
State/Province
Aichi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00180
City
Asahi
State/Province
Chiba
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00166
City
Funabashi
State/Province
Chiba
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00115
City
Narashino
State/Province
Chiba
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00138
City
Yotsukaido
State/Province
Chiba
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00120
City
Iizuka
State/Province
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00110
City
Kasuga
State/Province
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00040
City
Kitakyushu
State/Province
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00119
City
Kitakyushu
State/Province
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00071
City
Kurume
State/Province
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00106
City
Kurume
State/Province
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00033
City
Takasaki
State/Province
Gunma
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00163
City
Higashihiroshima
State/Province
Hiroshima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00124
City
Tomakomai
State/Province
Hokaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00026
City
Asahikawa
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00090
City
Hakodate
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00172
City
Kitami
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00125
City
Kushiro
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00001
City
Sapporo
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00002
City
Sapporo
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00003
City
Sapporo
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00038
City
Sapporo
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00114
City
Sapporo
State/Province
Hokkaido
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00056
City
Akashi
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00069
City
Himeji
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00136
City
Itami
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00113
City
Kakogawa
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00041
City
Kato
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00042
City
Kobe
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00092
City
Kobe
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00154
City
Kobe
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00171
City
Kobe
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00117
City
Nishinomiya
State/Province
Hyogo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00181
City
Hitachinaka
State/Province
Ibaraki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00107
City
Hitachi
State/Province
Ibaraki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00073
City
Koga
State/Province
Ibaraki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00054
City
Mito
State/Province
Ibaraki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00039
City
Tsukuba
State/Province
Ibaraki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00179
City
Komatsu
State/Province
Ishikawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00049
City
Morioka
State/Province
Iwate
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00088
City
Kida
State/Province
Kagawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00084
City
Isehara
State/Province
Kanagawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00048
City
Kawasaki
State/Province
Kanagawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00058
City
Kawasaki
State/Province
Kanagawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00141
City
Sagamihara
State/Province
Kanagawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00096
City
Yokohama
State/Province
Kanagawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00045
City
Zushi
State/Province
Kanagawa
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00019
City
Koshi
State/Province
Kumamoto
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00057
City
Tamana
State/Province
Kumamoto
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00168
City
Yokkaichi
State/Province
Mie
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00169
City
Osaki
State/Province
Miyagi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00004
City
Sendai
State/Province
Miyagi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00036
City
Sendai
State/Province
Miyagi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00105
City
Sendai
State/Province
Miyagi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00151
City
Sendai
State/Province
Miyagi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00050
City
Hyuga
State/Province
Miyazaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00129
City
Matsumoto
State/Province
Nagano
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00162
City
Isehaya
State/Province
Nagasaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00101
City
Omura
State/Province
Nagasaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00103
City
Omura
State/Province
Nagasaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00153
City
Sasebo
State/Province
Nagasaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00094
City
Kashihara
State/Province
Nara
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00025
City
Nagaoka
State/Province
Niigata
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00144
City
Shibata
State/Province
Niigata
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00064
City
Beppu
State/Province
Oita
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00051
City
Setouchi
State/Province
Okayama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00011
City
Hannan
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00134
City
Higashiosaka
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00178
City
Hirakata
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00078
City
Kawachinagano
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00137
City
Sakai
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00070
City
Suita
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00146
City
Suita
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00061
City
Toyonaka
State/Province
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00075
City
Ureshino
State/Province
Saga
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00126
City
Gyoda
State/Province
Saitama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00007
City
Hiki
State/Province
Saitama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00060
City
Kawagoe
State/Province
Saitama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00161
City
Kawagoe
State/Province
Saitama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00062
City
Kawaguchi
State/Province
Saitama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00052
City
Sayama
State/Province
Saitama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00008
City
Tokorozawa
State/Province
Saitama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00133
City
Kakegawa
State/Province
Shizuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00077
City
Kanuma
State/Province
Tochigi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00145
City
Shimotsuke
State/Province
Tochigi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00024
City
Bunkyo
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00143
City
Bunkyo
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00149
City
Bunkyo
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00152
City
Bunkyo
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00099
City
Chiyoda
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00142
City
Chuo
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00063
City
Hachioji
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00053
City
Kiyose
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00072
City
Meguro
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00148
City
Ota
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00081
City
Shibuya
State/Province
Tokyo
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00010
City
Takaoka
State/Province
Toyama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00155
City
Nishimuro
State/Province
Wakayama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00104
City
Shimonoseki
State/Province
Yamaguchi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00047
City
Shunan
State/Province
Yamaguchi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00176
City
Fukui
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00018
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00020
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00035
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00059
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00067
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00076
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00131
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00164
City
Fukuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00165
City
Fukushima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00013
City
Hiroshima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00014
City
Hiroshima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00016
City
Hiroshima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00055
City
Hiroshima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00074
City
Kagoshima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00167
City
Kagoshima
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00093
City
Kochi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00022
City
Kumamoto
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00046
City
Kumamoto
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00085
City
Kyoto
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00123
City
Kyoto
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00160
City
Kyoto
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00023
City
Miyagi
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00122
City
Miyazaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00080
City
Nagano
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00174
City
Nagano
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00098
City
Nagasaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00112
City
Nagasaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00147
City
Nagasaki
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00017
City
Oita
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00118
City
Okayama
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00150
City
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00157
City
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00177
City
Osaka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00044
City
Shizuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00089
City
Shizuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00135
City
Shizuoka
Country
Japan
Facility Name
JP00139
City
Toyama
Country
Japan

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Plan to Share IPD
Yes
IPD Sharing Plan Description
Access to anonymized individual participant level data collected during the study, in addition to study-related supporting documentation, is planned for studies conducted with approved product indications and formulations, as well as compounds terminated during development. Studies conducted with product indications or formulations that remain active in development are assessed after study completion to determine if Individual Participant Data can be shared. Conditions and exceptions are described under the Sponsor Specific Details for Astellas on www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com.
IPD Sharing Time Frame
Access to participant level data is offered to researchers after publication of the primary manuscript (if applicable) and is available as long as Astellas has legal authority to provide the data.
IPD Sharing Access Criteria
Researchers must submit a proposal to conduct a scientifically relevant analysis of the study data. The research proposal is reviewed by an Independent Research Panel. If the proposal is approved, access to the study data is provided in a secure data sharing environment after receipt of a signed Data Sharing Agreement.
IPD Sharing URL
https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com/
Citations:
PubMed Identifier
35267027
Citation
Tanaka Y, Takeuchi T, Kato D, Kaneko Y, Fukuda M, Izutsu H, Rokuda M, van der Heijde D. Post hoc analysis of clinical characteristics of patients with radiographic progression in a Japanese phase 3 trial of peficitinib and methotrexate treatment (RAJ4). Mod Rheumatol. 2023 Jan 3;33(1):73-80. doi: 10.1093/mr/roac021.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
34429152
Citation
Tanaka Y, Takeuchi T, Izutsu H, Kaneko Y, Kato D, Fukuda M, Rokuda M, Schultz NM. Patient- and physician-reported outcomes from two phase 3 randomized studies (RAJ3 and RAJ4) of peficitinib (ASP015K) in Asian patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2021 Aug 24;23(1):221. doi: 10.1186/s13075-021-02590-z.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
33929089
Citation
Toyoshima J, Kaibara A, Shibata M, Kaneko Y, Izutsu H, Nishimura T. Exposure-response modeling of peficitinib efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2021 May;9(3):e00744. doi: 10.1002/prp2.744.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
33068028
Citation
Toyoshima J, Shibata M, Kaibara A, Kaneko Y, Izutsu H, Nishimura T. Population pharmacokinetic analysis of peficitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021 Apr;87(4):2014-2022. doi: 10.1111/bcp.14605. Epub 2020 Dec 1.
Results Reference
derived
PubMed Identifier
31350269
Citation
Takeuchi T, Tanaka Y, Tanaka S, Kawakami A, Iwasaki M, Katayama K, Rokuda M, Izutsu H, Ushijima S, Kaneko Y, Shiomi T, Yamada E, van der Heijde D. Efficacy and safety of peficitinib (ASP015K) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RAJ4) in Japan. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct;78(10):1305-1319. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215164. Epub 2019 Jul 26.
Results Reference
derived
Links:
URL
https://astellasclinicalstudyresults.com/study.aspx?ID=336
Description
Link to results on Astellas Clinical Study Results website

Learn more about this trial

A Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of ASP015K in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Who Had an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate (MTX) Treatment

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs