A Study of RoActemra/Actemra (Tocilizumab) in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have an Inadequate Response to Current Non-Biologic and/or Biologic DMARDS
- Registration Number
- NCT01149057
- Lead Sponsor
- Hoffmann-La Roche
- Brief Summary
This single arm, open-label study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of RoActemra/Actemra (tocilizumab) in patients with active, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have an inadequate response to non-biologic and/or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Patients will receive intravenous RoActemra/Actemra at a dose of 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks. Anticipated time on study treatment is 96 weeks.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 145
- Adult patients, >/=18 years of age
- Active moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis
- Inadequate response to >/=3 DMARDs (non-biologic and/or biologic)
- Current treatment at stable dose for >/=8 weeks
- Etanercept discontinued >/=2 weeks, Anakinra >/=1 week, Infliximab, Adalimumab, Abatacept, Golimumab, Certolizumab >/=4 weeks, prior to baseline visit. Patients have discontinued MabThera/Rituxan or Ocrelizumab >/=16 weeks, and must have proven B-cell repletion
- Major surgery (including joint surgery) within 8 weeks prior to screening or planned major surgery within 6 months following baseline
- Rheumatic autoimmune disease other than RA
- Functional class IV (American College of Rheumatology Classification)
- Prior history or current inflammatory joint disease other than RA
- Oral corticosteroids at a dose of >10 mg/day prednisone equivalent
- Positive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and / or total hepatitis B core antibodies (HBcAb) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody
- Current or history of recurrent bacterial, viral, fungal or mycobaterial infection
- History of or currently active primary or secondary immunodeficiency
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- SINGLE_GROUP
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Single Arm tocilizumab [RoActemra/Actemra] -
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue Score at Week 24 in Intent-to-treat (ITT) Population Baseline, Week 24 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
Change From Baseline in FACIT Fatigue Score at Week 48 in ITT Population Baseline, Week 48 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
Change From Baseline in FACIT Fatigue Score at Week 72 in ITT Population Baseline, Week 72 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
Change From Baseline in FACIT Fatigue Score at Week 96 in ITT Population Baseline, Week 96 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
Change From Baseline in FACIT Fatigue Score at Week 24 in Per Protocol (PP) Population Baseline, Week 24 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
Change From Baseline in FACIT Fatigue Score at Week 48 in PP Population Baseline, Week 48 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
Change From Baseline in FACIT Fatigue Score at Week 72 in PP Population Baseline, Week 72 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
Change From Baseline in FACIT Fatigue Score at Week 96 in PP Population Baseline, Week 96 The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participant's fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as (4 minus the participant's response). The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worst score) to 52 (best score).
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Change From Baseline in Hemoglobin at Weeks 20, 44, 72 and 96 Baseline; Weeks 20, 44, 72 and 96 Change From Baseline in Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in Lumbar Spine, Total Hip and Femoral Neck Regions at End of Study Baseline, End of the study (up to Week 100) BMD was measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and T-scores (a standard deviation \[SD\] compared with the peak BMD value of an adult aged from 20 to 30 years) were calculated. Osteopenia was defined by a T-score between -1 and -2.5 SD and osteoporosis as a T-score below -2.5 SD, according to the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. T-scores for L1-L4 lumbar spine, total spine, total hip (left), and femoral neck (left) were calculated.
Number of Participants Achieving Remission According to Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) at Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 Remission was defined as DAS28 score less than (\<) 2.6. The DAS28 score was a measure of the participant's disease activity calculated using the tender joint count (TJC) \[28 joints\], swollen joint count (SJC) \[28 joints\], patient's global assessment of disease activity (visual analog scale \[VAS\]: 0=no disease activity to 100=maximum disease activity) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) for a total possible score of 0 to approximately 10. In case of missing ESR value, C-Reactive Protein (CRP) was used to calculate DAS28. Higher scores represented higher disease activity.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Remission According to DAS28 at Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 Remission was defined as DAS28 score \<2.6. The DAS28 score was a measure of the participant's disease activity calculated using the TJC \[28 joints\], SJC \[28 joints\], patient's global assessment of disease activity (VAS: 0=no disease activity to 100=maximum disease activity) and the ESR for a total possible score of 0 to approximately 10. In case of missing ESR value, CRP was used to calculate DAS28. Higher scores represented higher disease activity.
Percentage of Participants With DAS28 Good or Moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 The DAS28 score was a measure of the participant's disease activity calculated using the TJC \[28 joints\], SJC \[28 joints\], patient's global assessment of disease activity (VAS: 0=no disease activity to 100=maximum disease activity) and the ESR for a total possible score of 0 to approximately 10. In case of missing ESR value, CRP was used to calculate DAS28. Higher scores represented higher disease activity. EULAR Good response: DAS28 ≤3.2 and a change from Baseline \<-1.2. EULAR Moderate response: DAS28 greater than (\>) 3.2 to less than or equal to (≤) 5.1 or a change from Baseline \<-0.6 to greater than or equal to (≥) -1.2.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Remission and Low Disease Activity According to Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) at Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 SDAI was calculated by a simple numerical sum of tender and swollen joint count (based on a 28-joint assessment), patient and physician global assessment of disease activity (VAS 0-10 centimeter \[cm\]), and level of CRP. SDAI total score 0-86; higher scores = greater effect due to disease activity. Remission was defined as SDAI score ≤3.3. Low disease activity was defined as SDAI score ≤11.0.
Percentage of Participants Achieving Remission and Low Disease Activity According to Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 CDAI was calculated by a simple numerical sum of tender and swollen joint count (based on 28-joint assessment) and the patient and physician global disease assessment (VAS 0-10 cm). CDAI total score 0-76; higher scores = greater effect due to disease activity. Remission was defined as CDAI score ≤2.8. Low disease activity was defined as CDAI score ≤10.0.
Change From Baseline in TJC At Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Baseline; Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 68 joints are assessed for tenderness and joints are classified as tender/not tender giving a total possible tender joint count score of 0 to 68. A negative change from baseline indicated improvement.
Change From Baseline in SJC At Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Baseline; Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 66 joints were assessed for swelling and joints are classified as swollen/not swollen giving a total possible swollen joint count score of 0 to 66. A negative change from baseline indicated improvement.
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50 and ACR70 Response at Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 ACR20 response: ≥20% improvement in TJC; ≥20% improvement in SJC; and ≥20% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: Patient Assessment of Pain; Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA); Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PGA); self-assessed disability (disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire \[HAQ-DI\]); and either CRP or ESR. ACR50 response required ≥50% improvement in the above criteria and ACR70 response required ≥70% improvement in the above criteria.
C-reactive Protein Level Baseline; Weeks 8, 16, 24, 36 48, 72 and 96 Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Baseline; Weeks 8, 16, 24, 36 48, 72 and 96 Participant Assessment of Pain (VAS) Baseline; Weeks 8, 16, 24, 36 48, 72 and 96 The mean score of pain as assessed by participants using a 100-mm horizontal VAS, where the left endpoint (0) indicated "No pain," and the right endpoint (100) indicated "Unbearable pain". Higher score indicated higher pain.
Change From Baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) at Weeks 24, 48, 72, and 96 Baseline; Weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96 HAQ: 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 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.