Participants suffering from active rheumatoid arthritis despite continued treatment with methotrexate were evaluated for improvement of disease activity (efficacy) when taking GLPG0634 (3 different doses - 50 milligram \[mg\], 100 mg and 200 mg daily -, each evaluated as once daily \[QD\] and twice daily \[BID\] regimen) or matching placebo for 24 weeks. •During the course of the study, patients were also examined for any side effects that could occur (safety and tolerability), and the amount of GLPG0634 present in the blood (Pharmacokinetics) as well as the effects of GLPG0634 on disease- and mechanism of action-related parameters in the blood (Pharmacodynamics) were determined. Also, the effects of different doses and dose regiments of GLPG0634 administration on participants' disability, fatigue, and quality of life were evaluated.
* Treatment duration was 24 weeks in total. * However, at Week 12, participants on placebo who did not achieve a 20% improvement in swollen joint count(SJC66) and tender joint count (TJC68) were re-randomized (automatically via interactive voice/web response \[IXRS\]) to treatment to receive GLPG0634 100 mg QD or 50 mg BID doses in a blinded fashion, participants on 50 mg QD who had not achieved a 20% improvement in SJC66 and TJC68 were assigned to 100 mg QD and participants on 25 mg BID. who did not achieve a 20% improvement in SJC66 and TJC68 were assigned to 50 mg BID. All continued the study until Week 24. * Participants in the other groups maintained their randomized treatment until Week 24.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Enrollment
599
Rheumatology Associates of North Alabama, PC
Huntsville, Alabama, United States
Artho Care, Arthritis Care & Research P.C.
Gilbert, Arizona, United States
Arizona Arthritis & Rheumatology Research PLLC
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
C.V. Mehta MD Medical Corporation
Hemet, California, United States
Center for Innovative TherapyDivision of Rheumatology, UCSD
La Jolla, California, United States
Percentage of Participants Achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 Response at Week 12
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response is a measurement of improvement in multiple disease assessment criteria. The ACR20 response is defined as: 1) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in tender TJC68, and 3) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) (taken from the Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index \[HAQ-DI\]), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used (ie, to impute a missing response, the participant was assumed to be a non-responder).
Time frame: Week 12
Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR20 Response at Week 24
ACR20 response was defined as: 1) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used.
Time frame: Week 24
Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR50 Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
ACR50 response was defined as: 1) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI) 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS 4. Total HAQ-DI score 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used.
Time frame: Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR70 Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
ACR70 response: 1) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used.
Time frame: Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
ACR N% Improvement (ACR-N) Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
The ACR-N is the smallest percentage improvement in swollen and tender joints and the median of the remaining 5 core parameters, and is expected to be more sensitive to change than the ACR20, ACR50 or ACR70. It is a number varying between 0 and 100, with higher numbers indicating less severity of symptoms. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) algorithm was used (ie, to impute a missing value, the last preceding nonmissing value was used).
Time frame: Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Percentage of Participants With Disease Activity Score 28 Joints Corrected for CRP (DAS28 (CRP)) European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
DAS28 (CRP) was categorized into EULAR response categories (none, moderate, good) as follows: None = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2, \> 3.2 to ≤ 5.1, or \> 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline ≤ 6.0 or \> 0.6 to ≤ 1.2; Moderate = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline \> 0.6 to ≤ 1.2, Actual DAS28 (CRP) \> 3.2 to ≤ 5.1 or \> 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline \> 1.2, or Actual DAS28 (CRP) \> 3.2 to ≤ 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline \> 0.6 to ≤ 1.2; Good = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline \> 1.2. LOCF algorithm was used.
Time frame: Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR/EULAR Remission at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
A participant's disease activity status can be defined as being in remission when scores on the TJC28, SJC28, CRP (actual value in mg/dL) and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (cm) are all ≤ 1. Non-responder imputation was used.
Time frame: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change From Baseline in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
The SDAI is the numerical sum of 5 outcome parameters: TJC28, SJC28, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), and CRP (mg/dL). The SDAI was categorized as follows: • High disease activity: SDAI \> 26 • Moderate disease activity: 11 to 26 • Low disease activity: 3.3 to 11 • Remission: ≤ 3.3. LOCF algorithm was used. The SDAI total score ranges from 0 to approximately 86.
Time frame: Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
The CDAI is the SDAI modified to exclude CRP and is the sum of the 4 outcome parameters: TJC28, SJC28, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm). The CDAI was be categorized as follows: • High disease activity: \> 22 • Moderate disease activity: 10 to 22 • Mild disease activity: 2.8 to 10 • Remission: ≤ 2.8. LOCF algorithm was used. The CDAI total score ranges from 0 to approximately 76.
Time frame: Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life Using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) at Weeks 4, 12, and 24
FACIT-Fatigue scale is a 13-item questionnaire, each scored 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 that are scored reversely), the greater the fatigue. The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score), with a higher score indicating a better quality of life. LOCF algorithm was used.
Time frame: Baseline and Weeks 4, 12, and 24
Change From Baseline in Quality of Life Using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Scores at Weeks 4, 12, and 24
The SF-36 is a 36-item questionnaire measuring 8 domains (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health). Each domain score ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), with higher scores reflecting better health-related functional status. Two summary scale scores were computed based on weighted combinations of the 8 domain scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). LOCF algorithm was used.
Time frame: Baseline and Weeks 4, 12, and 24
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Desert Medical Advances
Palm Desert, California, United States
Desert Valley Medical Center
Victorville, California, United States
Infosphere Clinical Research, Inc.
West Hills, California, United States
RASF Clinical Research Center
Boca Raton, Florida, United States
Millennium Research
Ormond Beach, Florida, United States
...and 132 more locations