Working…
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

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

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 evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02305849
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : December 3, 2014
Results First Posted : August 3, 2020
Last Update Posted : August 3, 2020
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Astellas Pharma Inc

Brief Summary:
The objective of this study was to verify the efficacy of ASP015K versus placebo administrated in combination with methotrexate (MTX) over placebo in terms of efficacy in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to MTX

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Rheumatoid Arthritis Drug: Peficitinib Drug: Placebo Drug: Methotrexate Phase 3

Detailed Description:

This study was a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, confirmatory study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ASP015K (100 and 150 mg/day) administered in combination with MTX in participants with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.

Participants orally received ASP015K 100 mg, ASP015K 150 mg or placebo once daily (QD) in combination with MTX after breakfast for 52 weeks.

At Week 12, inadequate responders in the placebo group, as determined by a < 20% improvement from baseline (i.e., treatment initiation day) in tender or painful joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC), were switched to either ASP015K 100 mg or ASP015K 150 mg, and the dosage was maintained until the end of treatment (EOT). In addition, participants who received placebo at Week 28 were switched to either ASP015K 100 mg or ASP015K 150 mg, and the dosage was maintained until the EOT.

The ASP015K dose that was started for placebo group participants at Week 12 or Week 28 was randomly chosen at baseline. The dose was switched under the blinded condition.

Participants who completed this study were eligible for participation in the open-label extension study (015K-CL-RAJ2). Participants made a follow-up visit after the week 52 visit if they did not enroll into the extension study on the day of the week 52 visit.

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 519 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Quadruple (Participant, Care Provider, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: Phase 3 Study of ASP015K - A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Confirmatory Study of the Efficacy and Safety of ASP015K in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Had an Inadequate Response to MTX
Actual Study Start Date : July 25, 2014
Actual Primary Completion Date : June 20, 2017
Actual Study Completion Date : November 28, 2017

Resource links provided by the National Library of Medicine


Arm Intervention/treatment
Experimental: Peficitinib 100 mg
Participants received 100 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX for a period of 52 weeks.
Drug: Peficitinib
oral tablet
Other Name: ASP015K

Drug: Methotrexate
Oral tablet/capsule

Experimental: Peficitinib 150 mg
Participants received 150 mg tablet of peficitinib orally once daily in combination with MTX for a period of 52 weeks.
Drug: Peficitinib
oral tablet
Other Name: ASP015K

Drug: Methotrexate
Oral tablet/capsule

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

Drug: Methotrexate
Oral tablet/capsule




Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Percentage of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) C-Reactive Protein (CRP) Response at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/Early termination (ET) ]
    ACR20 response: greater than and equal to (≥) 20 percent (%) improvement in tender and swollen joint count; and ≥ 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional disability via a health assessment questionnaire, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.

  2. Change From Baseline in mTSS at Week 28 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 28/ET ]
    mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). Change from baseline was calculated as score at week 28 (ET) minus score at baseline. An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.


Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Percentage of Participants With an ACR20-CRP Response Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    ACR20 response:≥ 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint count; and ≥ 20% improvement in at least 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional disability via a health assessment questionnaire, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit. EOT was defined as end of treatment i.e, either early termination or week 52.

  2. Percentage of Participants With an ACR50-CRP Response at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    ACR50 response: ≥50% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 50% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.

  3. Percentage of Participants With an ACR50-CRP Response Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    ACR50 response: ≥50% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 50% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.

  4. Percentage of Participants With an ACR70-CRP Response at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    ACR70 response: ≥ 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 70% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.

  5. Percentage of Participants With an ACR70-CRP Response Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    ACR70 response: ≥ 70% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 70% improvement in 3 of the following 5 criteria compared with baseline: 1) physician's global assessment of disease activity, 2) participant's assessment of disease activity, 3) participant's assessment of pain, 4) participant's assessment of functional ability via a health assessment questionnaire-Disability Index, and 5) C-reactive protein at each visit.

  6. Change From Baseline in mTSS at Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 52/ET ]
    mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). Change from baseline was calculated as score at week 52 (ET) minus score at baseline. An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.

  7. Change From Baseline in JSN Score at Week 28 and Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline and weeks 28/ET and 52/ET ]
    JSN was defined as narrowing in joint space width over the course of the study. The JSN score summarizes the severity of JSN in 30 joints of the hands and 12 joints of the feet. JSN, including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. Higher scores indicate greater disease activity.

  8. Change From Baseline in Erosion Score at Week 28 and Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline and weeks 28/ET and 52/ET ]
    The joint erosion score was a summary of erosion severity in 32 joints of the hands and 12 joints of the feet. Each joint in the hand is scored from 0-5 and each joint in the foot is scored from 0-10. The score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet. By summing these score, the range of total erosion score is 0-280. Higher erosion score indicates greater disease activity.

  9. Percentage of Participants Achieving Change From Baseline in mTSS <= 0.5 at Week 28 and Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 28/ET and 52/ET ]
    mTSS was defined as the sum of joint erosion scores graded by assessing erosion severity in 44 joints (16 per hand and 6 per feet) and JSN scores graded by assessing narrowing of joint spaces in 42 joints (15 per hand and 6 per feet). Erosion score was scored from 0 (no erosion) to 5 (complete collapse of bone) and the score for erosion ranges from 0 to 160 in the hands and from 0 to 120 in the feet (the maximum erosion score for a joint in the foot is 10). JSN including subluxation, was scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (complete loss of joint space, bony ankylosis, or luxation), with a maximum JSN score of 168. mTSS scores ranged from 0 (normal) to 448 (worst possible total score). An increase in mTSS from baseline represented disease progression and/or joint worsening, no change represented halting of disease progression, and a decrease represented improvement.

  10. Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28-CRP at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.

  11. Change From Baseline in DAS28-CRP Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.

  12. Change From Baseline in DAS28-ESR at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.

  13. Change From Baseline in DAS28-ESR Score Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. Higher DAS28 score indicated greater disease activity.

  14. Change From Baseline in TJC (68 Joints) at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The participants were examined for the tender joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 68 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher TJC indicated greater disease activity.

  15. Change From Baseline in TJC (68 Joints) Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The participants were examined for the tender joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 68 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher TJC indicated greater disease activity.

  16. Change From Baseline in SJC (66 Joints) at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The participants were examined for the swollen joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 66 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher SJC indicated greater disease activity.

  17. Change From Baseline in SJC (66 Joints) Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The participants were examined for the swollen joints and the location was confirmed by the investigator who assessed the following 66 joints which included temporomandibular joints (2), sternoclavicular joints (2), acromioclavicular joints (2), shoulder joints (2), elbow joints (2), wrist joints (2), distal interphalangeal joints (8), proximal interphalangeal joints of both hands (10), metacarpophalangeal joints (10), knee joints (2), ankle joints (2), tarsal bones (2), metatarsophalangeal joints (10), interphalangeal joint joints of toes (2), proximal interphalangeal joints of both feet (8). Higher SJC indicated greater disease activity.

  18. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score < 2.6 at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.

  19. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score < 2.6 Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.

  20. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score < 2.6 at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.

  21. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score < 2.6 Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. If the DAS28 score was less than 2.6, the participant was considered to be in DAS28 remission.

  22. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score <= 3.2 at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.

  23. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-CRP Score <= 3.2 Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    DAS28-CRP response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), CRP, SGA, and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.36 ln (CRP + 1) + 0.014 × SGA + 0.96. DAS28-CRP scores range from 0.96 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.

  24. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score <= 3.2 at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.

  25. Percentage of Participants Achieving DAS28-ESR Score <= 3.2 Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    DAS28-ESR response consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), ESR, SGA , and calculated according to description: DAS28 = 0.56√(TJC) + 0.28√(SJC) + 0.70 ln ESR + 0.014 × SGA. DAS28-ESR scores range from 0 to approximately 10. DAS28 score of less than or equal to 3.2 was considered to be low disease activity.

  26. Change From Baseline in CRP at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    Higher CRP indicates greater disease activity.

  27. Change From Baseline in CRP Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    Higher CRP indicates greater disease activity.

  28. Change From Baseline in ESR at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    Higher ESR indicates greater disease activity.

  29. Change From Baseline in ESR Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    Higher ESR indicates greater disease activity.

  30. Percentage of Participants With a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Good Response Using DAS28-CRP at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.

  31. Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-CRP Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.

  32. Percentage of Participants With a Good or Moderate EULAR Response Using DAS28-CRP at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.

  33. Percentage of Participants With a Good or Moderate EULAR Response Using DAS28-CRP Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.

  34. Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-ESR at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in the outcome measure.

  35. Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good Response Using DAS28-ESR Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good response have been reported in this outcome measure.

  36. Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good or Moderate Response Using DAS28-ESR at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.

  37. Percentage of Participants With a EULAR Good or Moderate Response Using DAS28-ESR Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The Disease Activity Score Based on 28-joints Count based EULAR response criteria were used to measure individual response as none, good, and moderate, depending on the extent of change from baseline and the level of disease activity reached. Good responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 =< 3.2; moderate responders: change from baseline >1.2 with DAS28 >3.2 to =<5.1 or change from baseline >0.6 to =<1.2 with DAS28 =<5.1; non-responders: change from baseline =< 0.6 or change from baseline >0.6 and =<1.2 with DAS28 >5.1. Percentage of participants with good or moderate response have been reported in this outcome measure.

  38. Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR / EULAR Remission at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    ACR/EULAR Remission was defined as TJC (68 joints) ≤ 1, SJC (66 joints) ≤1, CRP ≤1 mg/dL, and participant's global assessment of arthritis ≤ 1 cm (on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 - 100 mm).

  39. Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR / EULAR Remission Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    ACR/EULAR Remission was defined as TJC (68 joints) ≤ 1, SJC (66 joints) ≤1, CRP ≤1 mg/dL, and participant's global assessment of arthritis ≤ 1 cm (on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0 - 100 mm).

  40. Percentage of Participants Achieving Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) Remission <=3.3 at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Week 12/ET ]
    SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description. SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. SDAI Remission was defined as SDAI score ≤ 3.3.

  41. Percentage of Participants Achieving SDAI Remission Score <=3.3 Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description. SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. SDAI Remission was defined as SDAI score ≤ 3.3.

  42. Change From Baseline in SDAI Score at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description: SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. The SDAI score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. Higher SDAI indicates greater disease activity.

  43. Change From Baseline in SDAI Score Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    SDAI score consisted of following parameters: TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), SGA, PGA, CRP (mg/dL), and calculated according to description: SDAI = TJC + SJC + SGA + PGA + CRP. The SDAI score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. Higher SDAI indicates greater disease activity.

  44. Change From Baseline in PGA at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The investigator assessed the participants' disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the physician assessment table. Higher PGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.

  45. Change From Baseline in PGA Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The investigator assessed the participants disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the physician assessment table. Higher PGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.

  46. Change From Baseline in SGA at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The participant assessed his/her own disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.

  47. Change From Baseline in SGA Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The participant assessed his/her own disease activity on a VAS of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA (100 mm VAS) scores indicate greater activity impairment.

  48. Change From Baseline in SGAP at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The participant assessed his/her own pain severity on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) scores indicated greater activity pain.

  49. Change From Baseline in SGAP Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    The participant assessed his/her own pain severity on a visual analog scale (VAS) of 0-100 mm on the questionnaire form. Higher SGA of pain (100 mm VAS) scores indicated greater activity pain.

  50. Number of Participants Who Withdrew Due to Lack of Efficacy [ Time Frame: Up to week 52 ]
    Participants who discontinued due to lack of efficacy have been reported.

  51. Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    Participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item was scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.

  52. Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52 and EOT ]
    Participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item was scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.

  53. Change From Baseline in Short Form Health Survey - 36 Questions, Version 2 (SF-36v2) Physical Component Summary Score at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.

  54. Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary Score Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT ]
    The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.

  55. Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Mental Component Summary Score at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.

  56. Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Mental Component Summary Score Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT ]
    The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.

  57. Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Role/Social Component Summary Score at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.

  58. Change From Baseline in SF-36v2 Role/Social Component Summary Score Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT ]
    The SF-36v2 was scored for the 8 subscales (each range: 0-100 scale): 1. physical functioning, 2. role physical, 3. bodily pain, 4. general health, 5. vitality, 6. social functioning, 7. role-emotional, and 8. mental health. Physical Component Summary Score, Mental Component Summary Score and Roll/Social Component Summary Score were calculated based on the 2007 General Japanese Population Means and Standard Deviations and coefficient. Component summary measures had means of 50 in 2007 General Japanese Population and deviation was expressed by the scale of 10. Higher score indicated better health state.

  59. Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (WPAI) Percent Work Time Missed at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent work time missed due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4). Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  60. Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Work Time Missed Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent work time missed due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4). Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  61. Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Impairment While Working at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent impairment while working due to problem was calculated as Q5/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  62. Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Impairment While Working Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent impairment while working due to problem was calculates as Q5/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  63. Change From Baseline in Percent Overall Work Impairment at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent overall work impairment due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4)+[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)]. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  64. Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Overall Work Impairment Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work). Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent overall work impairment due to problem was calculated as Q2/(Q2+Q4)+[(1-(Q2/(Q2+Q4))x(Q5/10)]. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  65. Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Activity Impairment at Week 12 [ Time Frame: Baseline and week 12/ET ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work) and a 1-week recall period. Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent activity impairment due to problem was calculated as Q6/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  66. Change From Baseline in WPAI Percent Activity Impairment Through Week 52 [ Time Frame: Baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 28, 52 and EOT ]
    WPAI consisted of 6 questions (Q1=Employment status; Q2=Hours absent from work due to the rheumatoid arthritis; Q3=Hours absent from work due to other reasons; Q4=Hours actually worked; Q5=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while working; Q6=Impact of the rheumatoid arthritis on productivity while doing regular daily activities other than work) and a 1-week recall period. Higher WPAI scores indicated greater activity impairment. The scores were multiplied by 100 to express in percentages. Percent activity impairment due to problem was calculated as Q6/10. Negative values indicate improvement from baseline.

  67. Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs) During the First 12 Weeks [ Time Frame: Week 0 to week 12 ]
    TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Term (PT). Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE.

  68. Number of Participants With TEAEs From Week 12 to Week 28 [ Time Frame: Week 12 to week 28 ]
    TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by SOC and PT. Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on NCI-CTCAE, AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE

  69. Number of Participants With TEAEs From Week 28 to Week 52 [ Time Frame: Week 28 to week 52, plus 28 days after the week 52 visit for participants who did not enroll in the extension study ]
    TEAEs were defined as any AE that started or worsened in severity after initial dose of study drug or reference drug through week 52 or withdrawal. TEAEs were summarized using MedDRA (Version 11.1) by SOC and PT. Participants reporting more than 1 AE for a given MedDRA PT were counted only once for that term. Participants reporting more than 1 AE within a SOC were counted only once for the SOC total. Based on National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), AEs were graded as grade 1=mild; grade 2=moderate: grade 3 = severe or medically significant, grade 4 = life threatening, grade 5 = death related to AE.



Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   20 Years and older   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   All
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

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

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

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

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

Exclusion Criteria:

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

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

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT02305849


Locations
Show Show 146 study locations
Sponsors and Collaborators
Astellas Pharma Inc
Investigators
Layout table for investigator information
Study Director: Medical Director Astellas Pharma Inc
  Study Documents (Full-Text)

Documents provided by Astellas Pharma Inc:
Study Protocol  [PDF] March 3, 2017
Statistical Analysis Plan  [PDF] January 18, 2018

Additional Information:
Publications automatically indexed to this study by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number):
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Astellas Pharma Inc
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02305849    
Other Study ID Numbers: 015K-CL-RAJ4
First Posted: December 3, 2014    Key Record Dates
Results First Posted: August 3, 2020
Last Update Posted: August 3, 2020
Last Verified: June 2020
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: Yes
Plan Description: Access to anonymized individual participant level data collected during the study, in addition to study-related supporting documentation, is planned for studies conducted with approved product indications and formulations, as well as compounds terminated during development. Studies conducted with product indications or formulations that remain active in development are assessed after study completion to determine if Individual Participant Data can be shared. Conditions and exceptions are described under the Sponsor Specific Details for Astellas on www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com.
Supporting Materials: Study Protocol
Clinical Study Report (CSR)
Time Frame: Access to participant level data is offered to researchers after publication of the primary manuscript (if applicable) and is available as long as Astellas has legal authority to provide the data.
Access Criteria: Researchers must submit a proposal to conduct a scientifically relevant analysis of the study data. The research proposal is reviewed by an Independent Research Panel. If the proposal is approved, access to the study data is provided in a secure data sharing environment after receipt of a signed Data Sharing Agreement.
URL: https://www.clinicalstudydatarequest.com/

Layout table for additional information
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: Yes
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No
Product Manufactured in and Exported from the U.S.: Yes
Keywords provided by Astellas Pharma Inc:
ASP015K
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Layout table for MeSH terms
Arthritis
Arthritis, Rheumatoid
Joint Diseases
Musculoskeletal Diseases
Rheumatic Diseases
Connective Tissue Diseases
Autoimmune Diseases
Immune System Diseases
Methotrexate
Peficitinib
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal
Abortifacient Agents
Reproductive Control Agents
Physiological Effects of Drugs
Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic
Antimetabolites
Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action
Antineoplastic Agents
Dermatologic Agents
Enzyme Inhibitors
Folic Acid Antagonists
Immunosuppressive Agents
Immunologic Factors
Antirheumatic Agents
Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors