Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01039688
Registration number
NCT01039688
Ethics application status
Date submitted
23/12/2009
Date registered
25/12/2009
Date last updated
6/04/2018
Titles & IDs
Public title
Comparing The Effectiveness And Safety Of 2 Doses Of An Experimental Drug, CP-690,550, To Methotrexate (MTX) In Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Not Previously Received MTX
Query!
Scientific title
Phase 3 Randomized, Double-blind Study Of The Efficacy And Safety Of 2 Doses Of Cp-690,550 Compared To Methotrexate In Methotrexate Navie Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
2009-016987-34
Query!
Secondary ID [2]
0
0
A3921069
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
ORAL1069
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Arthritis, Rheumatoid
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Musculoskeletal
0
0
0
0
Query!
Osteoarthritis
Query!
Inflammatory and Immune System
0
0
0
0
Query!
Rheumatoid arthritis
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Drugs - CP-690,550
Treatment: Drugs - CP-690,550
Treatment: Drugs - Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug
Experimental: 5 mg BID CP-690,550 -
Experimental: 10 mg BID CP-690,550 -
Active Comparator: methotrexate -
Treatment: Drugs: CP-690,550
Oral tablets administered at a dose of 5 mg BID for 24 months
Treatment: Drugs: CP-690,550
Oral tablets administered at a dose of 10 mg BID for 24 months
Treatment: Drugs: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug
Oral capsules,administered as 10 mg per week for 4 weeks titrated to 15 mg per week for 4 weeks, then titrated to 20 mg week for 24 months
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Drugs
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) at Month 6
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
mTSS: sum of erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) scores for 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per foot). mTSS scores range from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score).
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Month 6
Query!
Primary outcome [2]
0
0
Change From Baseline at Month 6 in mTSS
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
mTSS: sum of erosion and JSN scores for 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per foot). mTSS scores range 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 represents improvement.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Month 6
Query!
Primary outcome [3]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 70 (ACR70) Response at Month 6
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
ACR70 response: greater than or equal to (=) 70 percent (%) improvement in tender joints count (TJC) or swollen joints count (SJC) and =70% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]), and 5) C-reactive protein (CRP).
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Month 6
Query!
Primary outcome [4]
0
0
Absolute Blood Pressure (BP) Values (mmHg)
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
BP: pressure exerted by the blood upon the walls of the blood vessels and especially arteries, usually measured on the radial artery using a sphygmomanometer. Systolic BP: the highest arterial blood pressure of a cardiac cycle occurring immediately after systole of the left ventricle of the heart. Diastolic BP: the lowest arterial blood pressure of a cardiac cycle occurring during diastole of the heart.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24
Query!
Primary outcome [5]
0
0
Change From Baseline in BP Values (mmHg)
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
BP: pressure exerted by the blood upon the walls of the blood vessels and especially arteries, usually measured on the radial artery using a sphygmomanometer. Systolic BP: the highest arterial blood pressure of a cardiac cycle occurring immediately after systole of the left ventricle of the heart. Diastolic BP: the lowest arterial blood pressure of a cardiac cycle occurring during diastole of the heart.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
mTSS Score at Baseline, Months 12 and 24
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
mTSS: sum of erosion and JSN scores for 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per foot). mTSS scores range from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score).
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Baseline, Months 12 and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Change From Baseline in mTSS Score at Months 12 and 24
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
mTSS: sum of erosion and JSN scores for 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per foot). mTSS scores range 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 represents improvement.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Months 12 and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With no Progression in mTSS at Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
mTSS: sum of erosion and JSN scores for 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per foot). mTSS scores range from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). A increase of less than or equal to (=)0.5 in mTSS is considered to be no progression in the mTSS.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With no Worsening in Erosion Score (Increase =0.5) at Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
Joint erosion score: erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand, 6 per foot). Each joint scored according to surface area involved, from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (extensive bone loss from more than one half of articulating bone). Because each side of foot joint was graded, maximum erosion score for foot joint was 10. Thus, maximum erosion score was 280. An increase of =0.5 in Erosion Score is considered to be 'no worsening' in the Erosion Score.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Erosion Scores
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
Joint erosion score: erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand, 6 per foot). Each joint scored according to surface area involved, from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (extensive bone loss from more than one half of articulating bone). Because each side of foot joint was graded, maximum erosion score for foot joint was 10. Thus, maximum erosion score was 280.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Baseline, Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
JSN Scores
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
JSN score: severity of JSN in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per foot), including subluxation, scored from 0 (no/normal JSN) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation). Maximum JSN score was 168.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
Baseline, Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Erosion Scores
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
Joint erosion score: erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand, 6 per foot). Each joint scored according to surface area involved, from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (extensive bone loss from more than one half of articulating bone). Because each side of foot joint was graded, maximum erosion score for foot joint was 10. Thus, maximum erosion score was 280. Change = score at observation minus score at Baseline. An increase in score from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
0
0
Change From Baseline in JSN Scores
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
JSN score: severity of JSN in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per foot), including subluxation, scored from 0 (no/normal JSN) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation). Maximum JSN score was 168. Change = scores at observation minus score at Baseline. An increase in score from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
Months 6, 12, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [9]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR70 Response
Query!
Assessment method [9]
0
0
ACR70 response: =70% improvement in TJC or SJC and =70% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of HAQ), and 5) CRP.
Query!
Timepoint [9]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [10]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR20 Response
Query!
Assessment method [10]
0
0
ACR20 response: =20% improvement in TJC or SJC and =20% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of HAQ), and 5) CRP.
Query!
Timepoint [10]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [11]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR50 Response
Query!
Assessment method [11]
0
0
ACR50 response: =50% improvement in TJC or SJC and =50% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of HAQ), and 5) CRP.
Query!
Timepoint [11]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [12]
0
0
Tender Joints Count (TJC)
Query!
Assessment method [12]
0
0
Sixty-eight (68) joints were assessed by a blinded joint assessor to determine the number of joints considered tender or painful. The response to pressure/motion on each joint was assessed using the following scale: Present/Absent/Not Done/Not Applicable (to be used for artificial or missing joints). Artificial joints were not assessed. 68 joints to be assessed were: upper body (temporomandibular, sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular); upper extremity: shoulder, elbow, wrist (radiocarpal, carpal and carpometacarpal considered as one unit), metacarpophalangeals (MCP I, II, III, IV, V), thumb interphalangeal (IP), proximal interphalangeals (PIP II, III, IV, V), distal interphalangeals (DIP II, III, IV, V); lower extremity: hip, knee, ankle, tarsus (includes subtalar, transverse tarsal and tarsometatarsal considered as one unit), metatarsophalangeals (MTP I, II, III, IV, V), great toe IP, proximal and distal interphalangeals combined (PIP II, III, IV, V).
Query!
Timepoint [12]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [13]
0
0
Change From Baseline in TJC
Query!
Assessment method [13]
0
0
Sixty-eight (68) joints were assessed by a blinded joint assessor to determine the number of joints considered tender or painful. The response to pressure/motion on each joint was assessed using the following scale: Present/Absent/Not Done/Not Applicable (to be used for artificial or missing joints). Artificial joints were not assessed. 68 joints to be assessed were: upper body (temporomandibular, sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular); upper extremity: shoulder, elbow, wrist (radiocarpal, carpal and carpometacarpal considered as one unit), MCP (I, II, III, IV, V), thumb IP, PIP (II, III, IV, V), DIP (II, III, IV, V); lower extremity: hip, knee, ankle, tarsus (includes subtalar, transverse tarsal and tarsometatarsal considered as one unit), MTP (I, II, III, IV, V), great toe IP, proximal and distal interphalangeals combined (PIP II, III, IV, V).
Query!
Timepoint [13]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [14]
0
0
Swollen Joints Count (SJC)
Query!
Assessment method [14]
0
0
Sixty-six (66) joints were assessed by a blinded joint assessor for swelling using the following scale: Present/Absent/Not Done/Not Applicable (to be used for artificial or missing joints). Artificial joints were not assessed. 66 joints assessed were: upper body (temporomandibular, sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular); upper extremity: shoulder, elbow, wrist (radiocarpal, carpal and carpometacarpal considered as one unit), MCP (I, II, III, IV, V), thumb IP, PIP (II, III, IV, V), DIP (II, III, IV, V); lower extremity: knee, ankle, tarsus (includes subtalar, transverse tarsal and tarsometatarsal considered as one unit), MTP (I, II, III, IV, V), great toe IP, proximal and distal interphalangeals combined (PIP II, III, IV, V).
Query!
Timepoint [14]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [15]
0
0
Change From Baseline in SJC
Query!
Assessment method [15]
0
0
Sixty-six (66) joints were assessed by a blinded joint assessor for swelling using the following scale: Present/Absent/Not Done/Not Applicable (to be used for artificial or missing joints). Artificial joints were not assessed. 66 joints assessed were: upper body (temporomandibular, sternoclavicular, acromioclavicular); upper extremity: shoulder, elbow, wrist (radiocarpal, carpal and carpometacarpal considered as one unit), MCP (I, II, III, IV, V), thumb IP, PIP (II, III, IV, V), DIP (II, III, IV, V); lower extremity: knee, ankle, tarsus (includes subtalar, transverse tarsal and tarsometatarsal considered as one unit), MTP (I, II, III, IV, V), great toe IP, proximal and distal interphalangeals combined (PIP II, III, IV, V).
Query!
Timepoint [15]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [16]
0
0
Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain
Query!
Assessment method [16]
0
0
Participants rated the severity of arthritis pain on a 0 to 100 millimeter (mm) visual analogue scale (VAS), where 0 mm=no pain and 100 mm=most severe pain.
Query!
Timepoint [16]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [17]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain
Query!
Assessment method [17]
0
0
Participants rated the severity of arthritis pain on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, where 0 mm=no pain and 100 mm=most severe pain.
Query!
Timepoint [17]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [18]
0
0
Physician Global Assessment of Arthritis
Query!
Assessment method [18]
0
0
Physician Global Assessment of Arthritis was measured on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, where 0 mm=very good and 100 mm=very bad.
Query!
Timepoint [18]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [19]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Physician Global Assessment of Arthritis
Query!
Assessment method [19]
0
0
Physician Global Assessment of Arthritis was measured on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, where 0 mm=very good and 100 mm=very bad.
Query!
Timepoint [19]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [20]
0
0
Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis
Query!
Assessment method [20]
0
0
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your arthritis affects you, how are you feeling today?" Participants responded by using a 0 - 100 mm VAS where 0=very well and 100=very poorly.
Query!
Timepoint [20]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [21]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis
Query!
Assessment method [21]
0
0
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your arthritis affects you, how are you feeling today?" Participants responded by using a 0 - 100 mm VAS where 0=very well and 100=very poorly.
Query!
Timepoint [21]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [22]
0
0
C-Reactive Protein
Query!
Assessment method [22]
0
0
CRP measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L)
Query!
Timepoint [22]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [23]
0
0
Change From Baseline in CRP
Query!
Assessment method [23]
0
0
Change from Baseline in CRP measured in mg/L.
Query!
Timepoint [23]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [24]
0
0
Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joint Count and C-Reactive Protein (3 Variables) (DAS28-3) CRP
Query!
Assessment method [24]
0
0
DAS28-3(CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using 28-joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-3(CRP) less than or equal to (=)3.2 implied low disease activity, greater than (>)3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-3(CRP) less than (<)2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [24]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [25]
0
0
Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joint Count and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (4 Variables) (DAS28-4 [ESR])
Query!
Assessment method [25]
0
0
DAS28-4(ESR) was calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joints count, ESR (millimeter/hour [mm/hour]) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28-4(ESR) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-4(ESR) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [25]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [26]
0
0
Change From Baseline in DAS28-3(CRP)
Query!
Assessment method [26]
0
0
DAS28-3(CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using 28-joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-3(CRP) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-3(CRP) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [26]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [27]
0
0
Change From Baseline in DAS28-4(ESR)
Query!
Assessment method [27]
0
0
DAS28-4(ESR) was calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28-4(ESR) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-4(ESR) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [27]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [28]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With DAS28-3(CRP) =3.2
Query!
Assessment method [28]
0
0
DAS28-3(CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using 28-joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-3(CRP) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-3(CRP) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [28]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [29]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With DAS28-4(ESR) =3.2
Query!
Assessment method [29]
0
0
DAS28-4(ESR) was calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28-4(ESR) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-4(ESR) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [29]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [30]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With DAS28-3(CRP) <2.6
Query!
Assessment method [30]
0
0
DAS28-3(CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using 28-joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-3(CRP) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-3(CRP) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [30]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [31]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With DAS28-4(ESR) <2.6
Query!
Assessment method [31]
0
0
DAS28-4(ESR) was calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28-4(ESR) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-4(ESR) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [31]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [32]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With DAS28-3(CRP) Response (Good or Moderate Improvement)
Query!
Assessment method [32]
0
0
DAS28-3(CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using 28-joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28 categorical responses define a good (absolute: <3.2 or >1.2 improvement from baseline [BL]), moderate (absolute: 3.2-5.1 or 0.6-1.2 change from BL), or no response (absolute: >5.1 or <0.6 change from BL).
Query!
Timepoint [32]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [33]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With DAS28-4(ESR) Response (Good or Moderate Improvement)
Query!
Assessment method [33]
0
0
DAS28-4(ESR) was calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28 categorical responses define a good (absolute: <3.2 or >1.2 improvement from BL), moderate (absolute: 3.2-5.1 or 0.6-1.2 change from BL), or no response (absolute: >5.1 or <0.6 change from BL).
Query!
Timepoint [33]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [34]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With an ACR70 Response Sustained at Least 6 Months
Query!
Assessment method [34]
0
0
ACR70 response: =70% improvement in TJC or SJC and =70% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of HAQ), and 5) CRP.
Query!
Timepoint [34]
0
0
Months 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [35]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Consecutive Visits of ACR20 Response by Number of Consecutive Visits
Query!
Assessment method [35]
0
0
ACR20 response: =20% improvement in TJC or SJC and =20% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of HAQ), and 5) CRP.
Query!
Timepoint [35]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [36]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Consecutive Visits of ACR50 Response by Number of Consecutive Visits
Query!
Assessment method [36]
0
0
ACR50 response: =50% improvement in TJC or SJC and =50% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of HAQ), and 5) CRP.
Query!
Timepoint [36]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [37]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Consecutive Visits of ACR70 Response by Number of Consecutive Visits
Query!
Assessment method [37]
0
0
ACR70 response: =70% improvement in TJC or SJC and =70% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: 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 (disability index of HAQ), and 5) CRP.
Query!
Timepoint [37]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [38]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Consecutive Visits of DAS28-3(CRP) <2.6 by Number of Consecutive Visits
Query!
Assessment method [38]
0
0
DAS28-3(CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using 28-joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-3(CRP) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-3(CRP) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [38]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [39]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Consecutive Visits of DAS28-4(ESR) <2.6 by Number of Consecutive Visits
Query!
Assessment method [39]
0
0
DAS28-4(ESR) was calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joints count, ESR (mm/hour) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment). Total score range: 0 to approximately 10, higher score=more disease activity. DAS28-4(ESR) =3.2 implied low disease activity, >3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity, >5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28-4(ESR) <2.6 = remission.
Query!
Timepoint [39]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [40]
0
0
Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)
Query!
Assessment method [40]
0
0
HAQ-DI: participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom, arise, eat, walk, hygiene, common activities over past week. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0-3: 0=no difficulty, 1=some difficulty, 2=much difficulty, and 3=unable to do. Any activity that requires assistance from another individual or requires the use of an assistive device adjusts to a minimum score of 2 to represent a more limited functional status. Overall score was computed as sum of domain scores and divided by number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3: 0=least difficulty and 3=extreme difficulty.
Query!
Timepoint [40]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [41]
0
0
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Score
Query!
Assessment method [41]
0
0
HAQ-DI: participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom, arise, eat, walk, hygiene, common activities over past week. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0-3: 0=no difficulty, 1=some difficulty, 2=much difficulty, and 3=unable to do. Any activity that requires assistance from another individual or requires the use of an assistive device adjusts to a minimum score of 2 to represent a more limited functional status. Overall score was computed as sum of domain scores and divided by number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3: 0=least difficulty and 3=extreme difficulty.
Query!
Timepoint [41]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [42]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With at Least 0.22 Improvement in HAQ-DI Score
Query!
Assessment method [42]
0
0
HAQ-DI: participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom, arise, eat, walk, hygiene, common activities over past week. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0-3: 0=no difficulty, 1=some difficulty, 2=much difficulty, and 3=unable to do. Any activity that requires assistance from another individual or requires the use of an assistive device adjusts to a minimum score of 2 to represent a more limited functional status. Overall score was computed as sum of domain scores and divided by number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3: 0=least difficulty and 3=extreme difficulty.
Query!
Timepoint [42]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [43]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With at Least 0.3 Improvement in HAQ-DI Score
Query!
Assessment method [43]
0
0
HAQ-DI: participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom, arise, eat, walk, hygiene, common activities over past week. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0-3: 0=no difficulty, 1=some difficulty, 2=much difficulty, and 3=unable to do. Any activity that requires assistance from another individual or requires the use of an assistive device adjusts to a minimum score of 2 to represent a more limited functional status. Overall score was computed as sum of domain scores and divided by number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3: 0=least difficulty and 3=extreme difficulty.
Query!
Timepoint [43]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [44]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With at Least 0.5 Improvement in HAQ-DI
Query!
Assessment method [44]
0
0
HAQ-DI: participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom, arise, eat, walk, hygiene, common activities over past week. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0-3: 0=no difficulty, 1=some difficulty, 2=much difficulty, and 3=unable to do. Any activity that requires assistance from another individual or requires the use of an assistive device adjusts to a minimum score of 2 to represent a more limited functional status. Overall score was computed as sum of domain scores and divided by number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3: 0=least difficulty and 3=extreme difficulty.
Query!
Timepoint [44]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [45]
0
0
Short Form 36 (SF-36) Mental Component Score
Query!
Assessment method [45]
0
0
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning) and is reported as 2 summary scores; physical component score and mental component score. Total score range for the summary scores = 0-100, where higher score represents higher level of functioning.
Query!
Timepoint [45]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [46]
0
0
SF-36 Physical Component Score
Query!
Assessment method [46]
0
0
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning) and is reported as 2 summary scores; physical component score and mental component score. Total score range for the summary scores = 0-100, where higher score represents higher level of functioning.
Query!
Timepoint [46]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [47]
0
0
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Mental Component Score
Query!
Assessment method [47]
0
0
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning) and is reported as 2 summary scores; physical component score and mental component score. Total score range for the summary scores = 0-100, where higher score represents higher level of functioning.
Query!
Timepoint [47]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [48]
0
0
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Physical Component Score
Query!
Assessment method [48]
0
0
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning) and is reported as 2 summary scores; physical component score and mental component score. Total score range for the summary scores = 0-100, where higher score represents higher level of functioning.
Query!
Timepoint [48]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [49]
0
0
SF-36 Domain Scores
Query!
Assessment method [49]
0
0
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).
Query!
Timepoint [49]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [50]
0
0
Change From Baseline in SF-36 Domain Scores
Query!
Assessment method [50]
0
0
SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional and mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).
Query!
Timepoint [50]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [51]
0
0
Work Limitation Questionnaire (WLQ) Score
Query!
Assessment method [51]
0
0
WLQ: participant-reported 25-item scale to evaluate degree to which health problems interfere with an ability to perform job roles along 4 dimensions: Time Management scale (5-items); Physical Demands scale (6-item); Mental-Interpersonal Demands Scale (9-items); Output Demands scale (5-items). All the scales ranged from 0 (limited none of the time) to 100 (limited all of the time).
Query!
Timepoint [51]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [52]
0
0
Change From Baseline in WLQ Scores
Query!
Assessment method [52]
0
0
WLQ: participant-reported 25-item scale to evaluate degree to which health problems interfere with an ability to perform job roles along 4 dimensions: Time Management scale (5 items); Physical Demands scale (6 items); Mental-Interpersonal Demands Scale (9 items); Output Demands scale (5 items). All the scales ranged from 0 (limited none of the time) to 100 (limited all of the time).
Query!
Timepoint [52]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [53]
0
0
WLQ Work Loss Index Score
Query!
Assessment method [53]
0
0
WLQ: participant-reported 25-item scale to evaluate degree to which health problems interfere with an ability to perform job roles along 4 dimensions: Time Management scale (5-items); Physical Demands scale (6-item); Mental-Interpersonal Demands Scale (9-items); Output Demands scale (5-items). All the scales ranged from 0 (limited none of the time) to 100 (limited all of the time). Work Loss Index, which represented percentage of lost work over time period relative to a normative population, was derived (total score:0 [no loss] to 100 [complete loss of work]).
Query!
Timepoint [53]
0
0
Baseline and Months 3, 6, and 12
Query!
Secondary outcome [54]
0
0
Change From Baseline in WLQ Work Loss Index Score
Query!
Assessment method [54]
0
0
WLQ: participant-reported 25-item scale to evaluate degree to which health problems interfere with an ability to perform job roles along 4 dimensions: Time Management scale (5-items); Physical Demands scale (6-item); Mental-Interpersonal Demands Scale (9-items); Output Demands scale (5-items). All the scales ranged from 0 (limited none of the time) to 100 (limited all of the time). Work Loss Index, which represented percentage of lost work over time period relative to a normative population, was derived (total score:0 [no loss] to 100 [complete loss of work]).
Query!
Timepoint [54]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [55]
0
0
European Quality of Life (EuroQol) Five Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile Utility Score
Query!
Assessment method [55]
0
0
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single utility score. Health State Profile component assesses level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression; 1 indicates better health state (no problems); 3 indicates worst health state ("confined to bed"). Scoring formula developed by EuroQol Group assigns a utility value for each domain in the profile. Score is transformed and results in a total score range -0.594 to 1.000; higher score indicates a better health state.
Query!
Timepoint [55]
0
0
Baseline and Months 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [56]
0
0
Change From Baseline in EQ-5D Health State Profile Utility Score
Query!
Assessment method [56]
0
0
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single utility score. Health State Profile component assesses level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression; 1 indicates better health state (no problems); 3 indicates worst health state ("confined to bed"). Scoring formula developed by EuroQol Group assigns a utility value for each domain in the profile. Score is transformed and results in a total score range -0.594 to 1.000; higher score indicates a better health state.
Query!
Timepoint [56]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [57]
0
0
Work Productivity and Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU) at Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [57]
0
0
Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA)-HCRU assessed healthcare usage during last 3 months for direct, indirect medical cost domains. Direct cost: visit to doctor, non-medical practitioner, nursing home, hospital, surgery, emergency room (ER) treatment, diagnostic tests, overnight stay, home healthcare services, aids/devices used. Indirect costs associated with functional disability: employment status, willingness to work, work disability due to RA, sick leave, part time work, ability to perform chores, chores done by family/friends/housekeeper. Assessment was based on 0 to 2-point scale; higher score=higher medical cost.
Query!
Timepoint [57]
0
0
Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [58]
0
0
Work Productivity and Healthcare Resource Utilization (HCRU) at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [58]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed healthcare usage during last 3 months for direct, indirect medical cost domains. Direct cost: visit to doctor, non-medical practitioner, nursing home, hospital, surgery, ER treatment, diagnostic tests, overnight stay, home healthcare services, aids/devices used. Indirect costs associated with functional disability: employment status, willingness to work, work disability due to RA, sick leave, part time work, ability to perform chores, chores done by family/friends/housekeeper. Assessment was based on 0 to 2-point scale; higher score=higher medical cost.
Query!
Timepoint [58]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [59]
0
0
Number of Events Including Visits, Surgeries, Tests or Devices as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [59]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed healthcare usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA/non-RA related number of events including visits to doctor, non-medical practitioner, hospital ER treatment, hospitalizations, number of surgeries, diagnostic tests, and devices/aids used were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [59]
0
0
Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [60]
0
0
Number of Events Including Visits, Surgeries, Tests or Devices as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [60]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed healthcare usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA/non-RA related number of events including visits to doctor, non-medical practitioner, hospital ER treatment, hospitalizations, number of surgeries, diagnostic tests, and devices/aids used were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [60]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [61]
0
0
Number of Days as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [61]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed healthcare usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of days spent in hospital, nursing home, aids/devices used, on sick leave, work per week, performed part time work, performed paid work, chores done by housekeeper and chores done by family/friends.
Query!
Timepoint [61]
0
0
Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [62]
0
0
Number of Days as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [62]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed healthcare usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of days spent in hospital, nursing home, aids/devices used, on sick leave, work per week, performed part time work, performed paid work, chores done by housekeeper and chores done by family/friends.
Query!
Timepoint [62]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [63]
0
0
Number of Hours Per Day as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [63]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed healthcare (HC) usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of hours spent per day for home healthcare services, chores done by housekeeper, chores done by family or friends, work done, and work missed were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [63]
0
0
Baseline and Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [64]
0
0
Number of Hours Per Day as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [64]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of hours spent per day for home healthcare services, chores done by housekeeper, chores done by family or friends, work done, and work missed were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [64]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [65]
0
0
Work Performance in Past 3 Months on Days Bothered as Assessed Using RA-HCRU
Query!
Assessment method [65]
0
0
Work performance of participants on number of days bothered was based on a 0 to 10-point scale, where higher score indicated lower work performance.
Query!
Timepoint [65]
0
0
Baseline, Months 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [66]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and HCRU at Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [66]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during last 3 months for direct, indirect medical cost domains. Direct cost: visit to doctor, non-medical practitioner, nursing home, hospital, surgery, ER treatment, diagnostic tests, overnight stay, home healthcare services, aids/devices used. Indirect costs associated with functional disability: employment status, willingness to work, work disability due to RA, sick leave, part time work, ability to perform chores, chores done by family/friends/housekeeper. Assessment was based on 0 to 2-point scale; higher score=higher medical cost.
Query!
Timepoint [66]
0
0
Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [67]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and HCRU at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [67]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during last 3 months for direct, indirect medical cost domains. Direct cost: visit to doctor, non-medical practitioner, nursing home, hospital, surgery, ER treatment, diagnostic tests, overnight stay, home healthcare services, aids/devices used. Indirect costs associated with functional disability: employment status, willingness to work, work disability due to RA, sick leave, part time work, ability to perform chores, chores done by family/friends/housekeeper. Assessment was based on 0 to 2-point scale; higher score=higher medical cost.
Query!
Timepoint [67]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [68]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Number of Events Including Visits, Surgeries, Tests or Devices as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [68]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed healthcare usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA/non-RA related number of events including visits to doctor, non-medical practitioner, hospital ER treatment, hospitalizations, number of surgeries, diagnostic tests, and devices/aids used were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [68]
0
0
Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [69]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Number of Events Including Visits, Surgeries, Tests or Devices as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [69]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA/non-RA related number of events including visits to doctor, non-medical practitioner, hospital ER treatment, hospitalizations, number of surgeries, diagnostic tests, and devices/aids used were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [69]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [70]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Number of Days as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [70]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of days spent in hospital, nursing home, aids/devices used, on sick leave, work per week, performed part time work, performed paid work, chores done by housekeeper and chores done by family/friends.
Query!
Timepoint [70]
0
0
Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [71]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Number of Days as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [71]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of days spent in hospital, nursing home, aids/devices used, on sick leave, work per week, performed part time work, performed paid work, chores done by housekeeper and chores done by family/friends.
Query!
Timepoint [71]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [72]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Number of Hours Per Day as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 3 and 6
Query!
Assessment method [72]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of hours spent per day for home HC services, chores done by housekeeper, chores done by family or friends, work done and work missed were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [72]
0
0
Months 3 and 6
Query!
Secondary outcome [73]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Number of Hours Per Day as Assessed Using RA-HCRU at Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [73]
0
0
RA-HCRU assessed HC usage during previous 3 months for direct or indirect medical cost domains. Any RA or non-RA related number of hours spent per day for home HC services, chores done by housekeeper, chores done by family or friends, work done and work missed were reported.
Query!
Timepoint [73]
0
0
Months 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [74]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Work Performance in Past 3 Months on Days Bothered as Assessed Using RA-HCRU
Query!
Assessment method [74]
0
0
Work performance of participants on number of days bothered was based on a 0 to 10-point scale, where higher score indicated lower work performance.
Query!
Timepoint [74]
0
0
Months 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [75]
0
0
Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) at Baseline and Months 1, 2, and 3
Query!
Assessment method [75]
0
0
Participant-rated 12 item questionnaire to assess constructs of sleep over past week. 7 subscales: sleep disturbance, snoring, awakened short of breath, sleep adequacy, somnolence (range: 0-100); sleep quantity (range: 0-24), optimal sleep (yes or no). 9-item index measures of sleep disturbance provide composite scores: sleep problem summary, overall sleep problem. Except Adequacy, Optimal, Quantity of sleep, higher cores=more impairment. Scores transformed (actual raw score [RS] minus lowest possible score divided by possible RS range*100); total score range: 0-100, higher score=more intensity of attribute.
Query!
Timepoint [75]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, and 3
Query!
Secondary outcome [76]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With Optimal Sleep Assessed Using MOS-SS
Query!
Assessment method [76]
0
0
MOS-SS: participant-rated 12 item questionnaire to assess constructs of sleep over past week. It included 7 subscales: sleep disturbance, snoring, awakened short of breath, sleep adequacy, somnolence, sleep quantity and optimal sleep. Participants responded whether their sleep was optimal or not by choosing yes or no. Number of participants with optimal sleep are reported
Query!
Timepoint [76]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [77]
0
0
Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) at Months 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [77]
0
0
Participant-rated 12 item questionnaire to assess constructs of sleep over past week. 7 subscales: sleep disturbance, snoring, awakened short of breath, sleep adequacy, somnolence (range: 0-100); sleep quantity (range: 0-24), optimal sleep (yes or no). 9-item index measures of sleep disturbance provide composite scores: sleep problem summary, overall sleep problem. Except Adequacy, Optimal, Quantity of sleep, higher cores=more impairment. Scores transformed (actual raw score [RS] minus lowest possible score divided by possible RS range*100); total score range: 0-100, higher score=more intensity of attribute.
Query!
Timepoint [77]
0
0
Months 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [78]
0
0
Change From Baseline in MOS-SS at Months 1, 2, and 3
Query!
Assessment method [78]
0
0
Participant-rated 12 item questionnaire to assess constructs of sleep over past week. 7 subscales: sleep disturbance, snoring, awakened short of breath, sleep adequacy, somnolence (range: 0-100); sleep quantity (range: 0-24), optimal sleep (yes or no). 9-item index measures of sleep disturbance provide composite scores: sleep problem summary, overall sleep problem. Except Adequacy, Optimal, Quantity of sleep, higher cores=more impairment. Scores transformed (actual raw score [RS] minus lowest possible score divided by possible RS range*100); total score range: 0-100, higher score=more intensity of attribute.
Query!
Timepoint [78]
0
0
Months 1, 2, and 3
Query!
Secondary outcome [79]
0
0
Change From Baseline in MOS-SS at Months 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Assessment method [79]
0
0
Participant-rated 12 item questionnaire to assess constructs of sleep over past week. 7 subscales: sleep disturbance, snoring, awakened short of breath, sleep adequacy, somnolence (range: 0-100); sleep quantity (range: 0-24), optimal sleep (yes or no). 9-item index measures of sleep disturbance provide composite scores: sleep problem summary, overall sleep problem. Except Adequacy, Optimal, Quantity of sleep, higher cores=more impairment. Scores transformed (actual raw score [RS] minus lowest possible score divided by possible RS range*100); total score range: 0-100, higher score=more intensity of attribute.
Query!
Timepoint [79]
0
0
Months 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [80]
0
0
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale
Query!
Assessment method [80]
0
0
FACIT-Fatigue is a 13-item questionnaire. Participant 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 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 (worse score) to 52 (better score). A higher score reflected an improvement in the participant's health status
Query!
Timepoint [80]
0
0
Baseline and Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [81]
0
0
Change From Baseline in FACIT-Fatigue Scale
Query!
Assessment method [81]
0
0
FACIT-Fatigue is a 13-item questionnaire. Participant 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 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 (worse score) to 52 (better score). A higher score reflected an improvement in the participant's health status
Query!
Timepoint [81]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [82]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Heart Rate
Query!
Assessment method [82]
0
0
Query!
Timepoint [82]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [83]
0
0
Change From Baseline in Temperature
Query!
Assessment method [83]
0
0
Query!
Timepoint [83]
0
0
Months 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 24
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
- Adults with moderate to severe RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis) who have not been treated
with methotrexate.
- Diagnosis of RA based on the American College of Rheumatology 1987 revised criteria.
- Active disease as defined by both >=6 tender or painful joints on motion and >= 6
joints swollen; and either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) > 28 mm or a
C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration > 7 mg/dL
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
99
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
- Blood dyscrasias including confirmed: Hemoglobin <9 g/dL or Hematocrit <30%; White
blood cell count <3.0 x 109/L; Absolute neutrophil count <1.2 x 109/L; Platelet count
<100 x 109/L
- History of any other rheumatic autoimmune disease other than Sjogren's syndrome
- No malignancy or history of malignancy
- History of infection requiring hospitalization, parenteral antimicrobial therapy, or
as otherwise judged clinically significant by the investigator, within the 6 months
prior to the first dose of study drug
- No chronic liver disease, recent or active hepatitis or other contraindication to
methotrexate therapy
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s
The people administering the treatment/s
The people assessing the outcomes
The people analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 3
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/01/2010
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/03/2013
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
956
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
QLD,SA,VIC
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
Rheumatology Research Unit Sunshine Coast - Maroochydore
Query!
Recruitment hospital [2]
0
0
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Department of Rheumatology - Woodville
Query!
Recruitment hospital [3]
0
0
Emeritus Research - Malvern East
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
4558 - Maroochydore
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
0
0
5011 - Woodville
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [3]
0
0
3145 - Malvern East
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
Arizona
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
Arkansas
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
California
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Florida
Query!
Country [5]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [5]
0
0
Indiana
Query!
Country [6]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [6]
0
0
Iowa
Query!
Country [7]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [7]
0
0
Louisiana
Query!
Country [8]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [8]
0
0
Maryland
Query!
Country [9]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [9]
0
0
Massachusetts
Query!
Country [10]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [10]
0
0
Nebraska
Query!
Country [11]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [11]
0
0
New York
Query!
Country [12]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [12]
0
0
North Carolina
Query!
Country [13]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [13]
0
0
Oklahoma
Query!
Country [14]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [14]
0
0
Pennsylvania
Query!
Country [15]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [15]
0
0
South Carolina
Query!
Country [16]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [16]
0
0
Tennessee
Query!
Country [17]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [17]
0
0
Texas
Query!
Country [18]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [18]
0
0
Washington
Query!
Country [19]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [19]
0
0
West Virginia
Query!
Country [20]
0
0
Argentina
Query!
State/province [20]
0
0
Buenos Aires
Query!
Country [21]
0
0
Belgium
Query!
State/province [21]
0
0
Gent
Query!
Country [22]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [22]
0
0
GO
Query!
Country [23]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [23]
0
0
PR
Query!
Country [24]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [24]
0
0
RS
Query!
Country [25]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [25]
0
0
SP
Query!
Country [26]
0
0
Brazil
Query!
State/province [26]
0
0
Rio de Janeiro
Query!
Country [27]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [27]
0
0
Plovdiv
Query!
Country [28]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [28]
0
0
Ruse
Query!
Country [29]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [29]
0
0
Sofia
Query!
Country [30]
0
0
Bulgaria
Query!
State/province [30]
0
0
Veliko Tarnovo
Query!
Country [31]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [31]
0
0
Alberta
Query!
Country [32]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [32]
0
0
British Columbia
Query!
Country [33]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [33]
0
0
Manitoba
Query!
Country [34]
0
0
Canada
Query!
State/province [34]
0
0
Ontario
Query!
Country [35]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [35]
0
0
IX Region
Query!
Country [36]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [36]
0
0
RM
Query!
Country [37]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [37]
0
0
V Region
Query!
Country [38]
0
0
Chile
Query!
State/province [38]
0
0
Rancagua
Query!
Country [39]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [39]
0
0
Atlantico
Query!
Country [40]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [40]
0
0
Cundinamarca
Query!
Country [41]
0
0
Colombia
Query!
State/province [41]
0
0
Santander
Query!
Country [42]
0
0
Costa Rica
Query!
State/province [42]
0
0
Cartago
Query!
Country [43]
0
0
Costa Rica
Query!
State/province [43]
0
0
San Jose
Query!
Country [44]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [44]
0
0
Brno - Zidenice
Query!
Country [45]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [45]
0
0
Brno
Query!
Country [46]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [46]
0
0
Hradec Kralove
Query!
Country [47]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [47]
0
0
Ostrava-Poruba
Query!
Country [48]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [48]
0
0
Praha 2
Query!
Country [49]
0
0
Czechia
Query!
State/province [49]
0
0
Praha 4
Query!
Country [50]
0
0
Dominican Republic
Query!
State/province [50]
0
0
Santo Domingo
Query!
Country [51]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [51]
0
0
Aachen
Query!
Country [52]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [52]
0
0
Berlin
Query!
Country [53]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [53]
0
0
Erlangen
Query!
Country [54]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [54]
0
0
Halle
Query!
Country [55]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [55]
0
0
Hamburg
Query!
Country [56]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [56]
0
0
Nuernberg
Query!
Country [57]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [57]
0
0
Ratingen
Query!
Country [58]
0
0
Germany
Query!
State/province [58]
0
0
Rheine
Query!
Country [59]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [59]
0
0
Balatonfüred
Query!
Country [60]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [60]
0
0
Budapest
Query!
Country [61]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [61]
0
0
Mezokovesd
Query!
Country [62]
0
0
Hungary
Query!
State/province [62]
0
0
Szolnok
Query!
Country [63]
0
0
India
Query!
State/province [63]
0
0
Andhra Pradesh
Query!
Country [64]
0
0
India
Query!
State/province [64]
0
0
Gujarat
Query!
Country [65]
0
0
India
Query!
State/province [65]
0
0
Karnataka
Query!
Country [66]
0
0
India
Query!
State/province [66]
0
0
Maharashtra
Query!
Country [67]
0
0
India
Query!
State/province [67]
0
0
Ahmedabad
Query!
Country [68]
0
0
Korea, Republic of
Query!
State/province [68]
0
0
Seoul
Query!
Country [69]
0
0
Malaysia
Query!
State/province [69]
0
0
Negeri Sembilan
Query!
Country [70]
0
0
Malaysia
Query!
State/province [70]
0
0
Selangor Darul Ehsan
Query!
Country [71]
0
0
Malaysia
Query!
State/province [71]
0
0
Kuching
Query!
Country [72]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [72]
0
0
Coahuila
Query!
Country [73]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [73]
0
0
Jalisco
Query!
Country [74]
0
0
Mexico
Query!
State/province [74]
0
0
Nuevo LEON
Query!
Country [75]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [75]
0
0
Auckland
Query!
Country [76]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [76]
0
0
Christchurch
Query!
Country [77]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [77]
0
0
Hamilton
Query!
Country [78]
0
0
New Zealand
Query!
State/province [78]
0
0
Timaru
Query!
Country [79]
0
0
Peru
Query!
State/province [79]
0
0
Callao
Query!
Country [80]
0
0
Peru
Query!
State/province [80]
0
0
Lima
Query!
Country [81]
0
0
Philippines
Query!
State/province [81]
0
0
Cebu City
Query!
Country [82]
0
0
Philippines
Query!
State/province [82]
0
0
Davao City
Query!
Country [83]
0
0
Philippines
Query!
State/province [83]
0
0
Manila
Query!
Country [84]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [84]
0
0
Gdynia
Query!
Country [85]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [85]
0
0
Katowice
Query!
Country [86]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [86]
0
0
Warszawa
Query!
Country [87]
0
0
Puerto Rico
Query!
State/province [87]
0
0
Ponce
Query!
Country [88]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [88]
0
0
Barnaul
Query!
Country [89]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [89]
0
0
Ekaterinburg
Query!
Country [90]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [90]
0
0
Kemerovo
Query!
Country [91]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [91]
0
0
Novosibirsk
Query!
Country [92]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [92]
0
0
Saint Petersburg
Query!
Country [93]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [93]
0
0
Smolensk
Query!
Country [94]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [94]
0
0
St. Petersburg
Query!
Country [95]
0
0
Russian Federation
Query!
State/province [95]
0
0
Tomsk
Query!
Country [96]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [96]
0
0
Bratislava
Query!
Country [97]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [97]
0
0
Dunajska Streda
Query!
Country [98]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [98]
0
0
Nove Zamky
Query!
Country [99]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [99]
0
0
Piestany
Query!
Country [100]
0
0
Slovakia
Query!
State/province [100]
0
0
Zilina
Query!
Country [101]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [101]
0
0
A Coruña
Query!
Country [102]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [102]
0
0
Vizcaya
Query!
Country [103]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [103]
0
0
Madrid
Query!
Country [104]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [104]
0
0
Malaga
Query!
Country [105]
0
0
Spain
Query!
State/province [105]
0
0
Sevilla
Query!
Country [106]
0
0
Sweden
Query!
State/province [106]
0
0
Malmo
Query!
Country [107]
0
0
Sweden
Query!
State/province [107]
0
0
Sundsvall
Query!
Country [108]
0
0
Sweden
Query!
State/province [108]
0
0
Uppsala
Query!
Country [109]
0
0
Taiwan
Query!
State/province [109]
0
0
Kaohsiung
Query!
Country [110]
0
0
Taiwan
Query!
State/province [110]
0
0
Taichung
Query!
Country [111]
0
0
Taiwan
Query!
State/province [111]
0
0
Tainan
Query!
Country [112]
0
0
Thailand
Query!
State/province [112]
0
0
Bangkok
Query!
Country [113]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [113]
0
0
Crimea
Query!
Country [114]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [114]
0
0
Kyiv
Query!
Country [115]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [115]
0
0
Lviv
Query!
Country [116]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [116]
0
0
Odesa
Query!
Country [117]
0
0
Ukraine
Query!
State/province [117]
0
0
Vinnitsa
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name
Pfizer
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
This study is designed to compare the effectiveness of the experimental drug, CP-690,550, to
methotrexate in preventing joint damage and improving symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis. This
study will also compare the safety of CP-690,550 with methotrexate.
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01039688
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center
Query!
Address
0
0
Pfizer
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
0
0
Query!
Address
0
0
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Summary Results
For IPD and results data, please see
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01039688
Download to PDF