A Study of Re-Treatment With MabThera (Rituximab) in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Had an Inadequate Response to a Single Anti-TNF Inhibitor.
- Registration Number
- NCT00502840
- Lead Sponsor
- Hoffmann-La Roche
- Brief Summary
This single arm study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of repeated courses of MabThera in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who have participated in ML19070, and have completed the week 24 visit. Eligible patients (DAS28 \>2.6 after week 24), will receive 2 infusions of 1g MabThera (Day 1 and day 15). For all patients in this extension study, up to 3 repeated courses of treatment are allowed. The anticipated time on study treatment is 1-2 years, and the target sample size is 100-500 individuals.
- Detailed Description
Not available
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 193
- adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis who participated in ML19070, and have completed the week 24 visit;
- eligible for re-treatment (DAS28 >2.6 after week 24, swollen joint count >=4, tender joint count >=4).
- patients who have withdrawn from treatment in ML19070 pre-week 16;
- patients with a previous response in DAS28 <0.6 to MabThera after week 16;
- concurrent treatment with any DMARD except for methotrexate, any TNF alpha inhibitor, or other biologic or investigational agent.
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- SINGLE_GROUP
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description 1 rituximab [MabThera/Rituxan] -
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Change From Baseline in DAS28 Score at Week 24 Week 24 DAS28 calculated from the swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count (PJC) using the 28 joints count, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (millimeters per hour \[mm/hour\]) and Patient Global Asessment of disease activity (participant- rated arthritis activity assessment) with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated greater affectation due to disease activity). A clinically meaningful improvement in DAS28 was defined as an improvement of 1.2 units.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method DAS28 Score by Treatment Course and Follow-up (FU) Visit Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 DAS28 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The DAS28 consists of SJC and TJC measurements, the ESR (measured in mm/hr), and Patient Global Asessment of disease activity (participant-rated arthritis activity assessment) with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated greater affectation due to disease activity. DAS28 less than or equal to (≤)3.2 equals (=) low disease activity, DAS28 \>3.2 to 5.1 = moderate to high disease activity.
Percentage of Participants With European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response of 'Good' or 'Moderate' by Treatment Course Week 24 DAS28 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The DAS28-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 had a change from baseline \>1.2 with a DAS28 score ≤3.2; moderate responders had a change from baseline \>1.2 with a DAS28 score \>3.2 to ≤5.1 or a change from baseline \>0.6 to ≤1.2 with a DAS28 score ≤5.1.
Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity Baseline and Week 24 Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). Baseline was defined as the original baseline score from assessment performed in Study ML19070. Participants were to assess the disease activity on a 100-mm horizontal VAS. The left-hand extreme of the line (0 mm) was described as "no disease activity" (symptom-free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right hand extreme (100 mm) as "maximum disease activity" (maximum arthritis disease activity).
Patient's Assessment of Pain Baseline and Week 24 Patient Assessment of Pain was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). Baseline was defined as the original baseline score from assessment performed in Study ML19070. Participants were to assess their current level of pain on a 100 mm horizontal VAS. The left-hand extreme of the line (0 mm) was described as "no pain" and the right-hand (100 mm) as "unbearable pain".
C-Reactive Protein Baseline and Week 24 CRP measured in milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). Baseline was defined as the original baseline score from assessment performed in Study ML19070.
Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Baseline and Week 24 ESR mean scores measured in mm/hr at was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). Baseline was defined as the original baseline score from assessment performed in Study ML19070.
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Response By EULAR Category and Treatment Course Week 24 Response was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The DAS28-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 had a change from baseline \>1.2 with a DAS28 score ≤3.2; moderate responders had a change from baseline \>1.2 with a DAS28 score \>3.2 to ≤5.1 or a change from baseline \>0.6 to ≤1.2 with a DAS28 score ≤5.1; non-responders had a change from baseline ≤0.6 or change from baseline \>0.6 and ≤1.2 with a DAS28 score \> 5.1.
Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI) Score by Treatment Course Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 HAQ-DI was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The HAQ-DI score consists of questions referring to 8 categories: dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip, and common daily activities. For each of the categories, participants reported the amount of difficulty they had in performing 2 or 3 specific sub-category items. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. The standard disability score was calculated from the 8 categories by dividing the sum of the individual categories by the number of categories answered ;total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty. The questionnaire was provided in a German translation and was scored based on the instructions from the Stanford University Medical Center.
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Fatigue (FACIT-F) Score by Treatment Course Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 FACIT-F was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The FACIT fatigue scale is based on a 13-item questionnaire to assess the therapy-induced fatigue. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), greater was 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 (best) to 52 (worst). The assessment was originally developed for chronic illnesses and is now validated for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The questionnaire was provided in a German translation.
Short-Form 36 (SF-36) Physical Composite Scores (PCS) by Treatment Course Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and mental composite t-score (MCS). The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 MCS by Treatment Course Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and MCS. The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
Rheumatoid Factor (RF) Baseline and Week 24 RF measured in international units per milliliter (IU/mL) was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). Baseline was defined as the original baseline score from assessment performed in Study ML19070.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - Physical Functioning Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and MCS. The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - Bodily Pain Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and MCS. The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - Physical Role Functioning Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the physical and mental composite t-scores (PCS and MCS). The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - Emotional Role Functioning Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the physical and mental composite t-scores (PCS and MCS). The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - Emotional Well-Being Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and MCS. The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - Social Functioning Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and MCS. The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - Vitality Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and MCS. The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
SF-36 Domain Scores by Treatment Course - General Heath Perceptions Screening, FU Weeks 8, 16, and 24, and FU Months 9 and 12 SF-36 was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The SF-36 is a multi-purpose, short-form health survey with 36 questions. It yields an 8-scale profile of functional health and well-being scores (domains) as well as psychometrically based physical and mental health summary measures. The SF-36 taps 8 health concepts: physical functioning, bodily pain, physical role functioning, emotional role functioning, emotional well-being, social functioning, vitality, and general health perceptions. The 8 scales are further summarized to 2 distinct higher-ordered clusters: the PCS and MCS. The range for all 8 domains as well as for the composite t-scores is from 0 to 100 with 100 as best possible health status and 0 as worst health status.
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 Percent (%), 50%, or 70% Improvement (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70) by Treatment Course 24 weeks after each course ACR response was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). ACR20/50/70 response: ≥20/50/70%, respectively, improvement in SJC or TJC and 20/50/70% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria: 1) Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, 2) Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, 3) Patient's Assessment of Pain, 4) participants assessment of functional disability via HAQ-DI, and 5) C-reactive protein (CRP) or ESR at each visit.
Swollen Joint Count Screening and Week 24 Mean sum of 28 swollen joints was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The 28 joints to be assessed for swelling were shoulder, elbow, wrist, metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints 1-5, proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints 1-5, and knee on both sides of the body. The sum of swollen joints ranged from 0 to 28 with 0 as best possible health status and 28 as worst health status.
Tender Joint Count Screening and Week 24 Mean sum of 28 tender joints was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). The 28 joints to be assessed for tenderness were shoulder, elbow, wrist, MCP joints 1-5, PIP joints 1-5, and knee on both sides of the body. The sum of tender joints ranged from 0 to 28 with 0 as best possible health status and 28 as worst health status.
Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity Baseline and Week 24 Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity was assessed during follow-up at the specified timepoints following each course of treatment (participants could have received up to 3 courses of treatment with rituximab). Baseline was defined as the original baseline score from assessment performed in Study ML19070. Physicians were to assess the disease activity on a 100-mm horizontal VAS. The left-hand extreme of the line (0 mm) was described as "no disease activity" (symptom-free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right hand extreme (100 mm) as "maximum disease activity" (maximum arthritis disease activity).
Trial Locations
- Locations (51)
Rheumapraxis - Dres. Edmund Edelmann, Gerhard Straeßner und Hans Bloching
🇩🇪Bad Aibling, Germany
Campus Charité Mitte Charité Centrum 12. Med.Klinik Abt.Rheumatologie u.Klin.Immunologie
🇩🇪Berlin, Germany
Praxis Dr. Silke Zinke
🇩🇪Berlin, Germany
Kliniken Essen; Süd Kath.Krankenhaus St.Josef; Abt. Rheumatologie und Immunologie
🇩🇪Essen, Germany
Med. Versorgungszentrum Kästner + Kästner GbR Ambulantes Rheumazentrum
🇩🇪Erfurt, Germany
Immanuel-Krankenhaus; Rheumklinik Berlin Buch
🇩🇪Berlin, Germany
Praxis PD Dr. med. Ekkehard Röther
🇩🇪Donaueschingen, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen; Medizinische Klinik 3; Rheumatologie und Immunologie
🇩🇪Erlangen, Germany
Ambulantes Rheumazentrum Dr.med. Helmut Sörensen
🇩🇪Berlin, Germany
HELIOS Seehospital Sahlenburg Abt.Internist.Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Cuxhaven, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Bonn Med. Klinik u.Poliklinik III
🇩🇪Bonn, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Jena; Klinik für Innere Medizin III
🇩🇪Jena, Germany
Praxis Dr.med. Ursula Mauß-Etzler
🇩🇪Karlsruhe, Germany
UNI-Klinikum Heidelberg Medizinische Klinik Innere Medizin V
🇩🇪Heidelberg, Germany
Praxis Andreas Reck
🇩🇪Mittelherwigsdorf, Germany
Medizinische Hochschule Zentrum Innere Medizin Abt.Klinische Immunologie und Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Hannover, Germany
Schön Klinik Hamburg-Eilbek Klinik für Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Hamburg, Germany
Rheumapraxis PD Dr.med. Bernhard Heilig
🇩🇪Heidelberg, Germany
Herz-Jesu-Krankenhaus Abt.Geriatrie u. Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Fulda, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Halle Klinik u.Poliklinik f.Innere Medizin I
🇩🇪Halle, Germany
Klinikum der Stadt Ludwigshafen; Medizinische Klinik A
🇩🇪Ludwigshafen, Germany
Rheumapraxis an der Hase
🇩🇪Osnabrück, Germany
Rheumatologische Schwerpunktpraxis am Feuersee
🇩🇪Stuttgart, Germany
Praxis Dr.med. Sylvia Berger
🇩🇪Naunhof, Germany
Praxis Dr.med. Anett Gräßler
🇩🇪Pirna, Germany
St.-Josef-Stift Klinik für Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Sendenhorst, Germany
Evangelisches Fachkrankenhaus; Rheumaklinik
🇩🇪Ratingen, Germany
Praxis Dr.med. Matthias Richter
🇩🇪Rostock, Germany
Johanniter-Krankenhaus im Fläming Treuenbrietzen GmbH; Fachklinik Pneumologie/ Thoraxchirurgie
🇩🇪Treuenbrietzen, Germany
Praxis Dr.med. Wolf-Dieter Wörth
🇩🇪Wiesbaden, Germany
Klinik der Uni zu Köln; Klinik für Innere Medizin
🇩🇪Köln, Germany
LMU München, Bereich Pettenkoferstr., Medizinische Poliklinik
🇩🇪Muenchen, Germany
Praxis Prof. Dr.med. Herbert Kellner
🇩🇪München, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Tübingen Medizinische UNI-Klinik und Poliklinik Abt. Innere Medizin II
🇩🇪Tübingen, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Ulm; Medizinische Uni-Klinik III Abt. Innere Medizin III Hämatologie u. Onkolo.
🇩🇪Ulm, Germany
Rheuma-Klinikum Bad Bramstedt Klinik fuer Rheumatologie und Immunologie
🇩🇪Bad Bramstedt, Germany
Rheumatologisches MVZ Dresden GmbH, Dres. Holger Schwenke, Reiner Schwenke, Annekatrin Georgi
🇩🇪Dresden, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg; Medizinische UNI-Klinik; Abt. Innere Medizin - VI Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Freiburg, Germany
Klinik Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Uni; Medizinische Klinik II; Abt. Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Frankfurt Am Main, Germany
MEDIGREIF Fachkrankenhaus fuer Rheumatologie und Orthopädie; Vogelsang-Gommern
🇩🇪Gommern, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH Standort Gießen Medizinische Klinik III
🇩🇪Gießen, Germany
Evangelisches Krankenhaus Hagen-Haspe Rheumaklinik
🇩🇪Hagen, Germany
Rheumazentrum-Ruhrgebiet, St. Josefs-Krankenhaus; Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Herne, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Münster Innere Medizin B
🇩🇪Münster, Germany
Universitaetsklinikum des Saarlandes; medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik; Innere Medizin I
🇩🇪Homburg/Saar, Germany
Gemeinschaftspraxis Prof. Dr. med. Klaus Krueger, Guenter Kellerer und Paul Kellerer
🇩🇪München, Germany
Evang.Krankenhaus Medizinische Klinik
🇩🇪Oldenburg, Germany
Klinikum der Uni Regensburg; Klinik f.Innere Medizin I Abt. Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie
🇩🇪Regensburg, Germany
Medizinisches Zentrum Betriebsteil Marienhöhe Klinik f.Internistische Rheumatologie
🇩🇪Würselen, Germany
Universitätsklinikum Würzburg; Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II; Hämatologie / Onkologie
🇩🇪Würzburg, Germany
Ev. Waldkrankenhaus Spandau; Klinik für Innere Medizin
🇩🇪Berlin, Germany