AzTrials
AzTrials

Rheumatoid ArthritisPhase 3NCT00951275

A Study of Tocilizumab + DMARDs in Patients With Moderate to Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis

A Phase 3 study testing tocilizumab [RoActemra/Actemra] and Standard DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs) in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis, run by Hoffmann-La Roche at 27 sites in Italy.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This single arm study will assess the effect of tocilizumab + DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs)on improvement of anemia and fatigue in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Rheumatoid Arthritis
What is being tested?
tocilizumab [RoActemra/Actemra] and Standard DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs)
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
105 participants
Where
27 sitesItaly
Study dates
31 Oct 2009to 22 Jul 2011
Phase
Phase 3
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • adult patients, >=18 years of age;
  • rheumatoid arthritis >=6 months duration;
  • DAS28>=3.2;
  • inadequate response to prior treatment with a stable dose (>=8 weeks) of DMARD therapy.

Who cannot join

  • rheumatic autoimmune disease other than rheumatoid arthritis;
  • history of or current inflammatory joint disease other than rheumatoid arthritis;
  • unsuccessful treatment with an anti-TNF agent;
  • previous/concurrent treatment with any cell-depleting therapies.

Trial locations and contacts

27 sites in 1 country.

27 sites in 1 country

Italy27 sites
  • Azienda Ospedaliera Rummo; Divisione Di Reumatologia

    Benevento, Campania, 82100

  • ASST PAPA GIOVANNI XXIII; Reumatologia Day Hospital-Torre 2 terzo piano

    Bergamo, Lombardy, 24127

  • A.O.U Policlinico S. Orsola Malpighi di Bologna U.O di Medicina Interna Borghi - Pad.2

    Bologna, Emilia-Romagna, 40138

  • Ospedale Perrino; Medicina Interna - Divisione di Reumatologia

    Brindisi, Apulia, 72100

  • Ospedale Vittorio Emanuele Ii; U.O. Reumatologia Clinica Medica Condorelli

    Catania, Sicily, 95124

  • A.U.O. G. Martino- Policlinico Univ. Gazzi; Dept. Di Medicina Interna, Divisione Di Reumatologia

    Gazzi, Sicily, 98125

  • Presidio Ospedaliero Valle D'itria; Divisione Di Nefrologia

    Martina Franca, Apulia, 74015

  • Ospedale Di Massa; Divisione Di Reumatologia

    Massa, Tuscany, 54100

  • ASST DI MONZA; Reumatologia (Medicina I)

    Monza, Lombardy, 20052

  • Azienda Ospedaliera A. Cardarelli; Medicina III - Divisione di Reumatologia

    Naples, Campania, 80131

  • UNIVERSITÀ DI NAPOLI FEDERICO II; Dipartimento di Immunologia Clinica ed Allergologia

    Naples, Campania, 80131

  • Arnas Ospedale Civico; Medicina Interna II

    Palermo, Sicily, 90127

  • Az. Osp. Villa Sofia; Unità Operativa Reumatologia

    Palermo, Sicily, 90146

  • Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia- Cervello X; Divisione Medicina I

    Palermo, Sicily, 90146

  • Az. Ospedaliera Univ. di Parma; Medicina Interna e Reumatologia

    Parma, Emilia-Romagna, 43100

  • Ospedale Guglielmo Da Saliceto Unità Operativa Semplice di Reumatologia e Immunologia

    Piacenza, Emilia-Romagna, 29100

  • Policlinico Tor Vergata; Divisione Di Reumatologia

    Rome, Lazio, 00133

  • Ospedale Nuovo Regina Margherita; Divisione di Medicina Interna Reumatologia

    Rome, Lazio, 00153

  • Ospedale S.Pietro Fatebenefratelli; Divisione di Reumatologia

    Rome, Lazio, 00189

  • IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas; Immunologia Clinica E Reumatologia

    Rozzano, Lombardy, 20089

  • Ospedale Galateo; U.O. Di Reumatologia

    San Cesario di Lecce, Apulia, 73016

  • Ospedale San Paolo; Divisione di Reumatologia

    Savona, Liguria, 17100

  • Ospedale M. Scarlato - Asl Sa1; U.O. Di Reumatologia

    Scafati, Campania, 84018

  • Irccs Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri-Istituto Scientifico Di Telese;U.O. Riabilitazione Reumatologica

    Telese Terme, Campania, 82037

  • Ospedale S. Giovanni Bosco; S.C. A Direzione Uni Ria Di Immunologia Clinica

    Turin, Piedmont, 10154

  • Ospedale SS Giovanni e Paolo; Divisione Di Reumatologia

    Venezia, Veneto, 30127

  • Ospedale Belcolle; Divisione Di Reumatologia

    Viterbo, Lazio, 01100

Other trials in Italy

About this study

Official title: A Single Arm, Open-label Study of Early Improvement of Anemia and Fatigue During Treatment With Tocilizumab (TCZ) in Combination With DMARDs, in Adult Patients With Moderate to Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

This single arm study will assess the effect of tocilizumab + DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs)on improvement of anemia and fatigue in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis. Eligible patients who have had an inadequate response to DMARDs will receive tocilizumab 8mg/kg iv every 4 weeks in combination with standard DMARDs, for 6 months. The anticipated time on study treatment is 3-12 months, and the target sample size is 100-500 individuals.

Being tested
tocilizumab [RoActemra/Actemra], Standard DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs)
Medical subject headings
Arthritis, Rheumatoid

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • tocilizumab [RoActemra/Actemra]Drug

    8mg/kg iv every 4 weeks for 6 months

  • Standard DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs)Drug

    As prescribed

Study groups in NCT00951275
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
1ExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: tocilizumab [RoActemra/Actemra]; Drug: Standard DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs)

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Improvement of Anemia at Week 4 Assessed as Change From Baseline in Hemoglobin

    Hemoglobin levels were measured as grams/deciliter (g/dL).

    Measured: Week 4

  2. Improvement in Fatigue at Week 4 Assessed as Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) Scores

    The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participants 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). Clinically relevant improvement is defined as a greater than or equal to (≥)5-point change from Baseline.

    Measured: Week 4

Secondary outcomes (25)
  1. Mean Hemoglobin Levels During the Study

    Measured: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24

  2. Improvement of Anemia Assessed as Change From Baseline in Hemoglobin

    Improvement of anemia was evaluated as change in hemoglobin levels from baseline.

    Measured: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24

  3. FACIT-F Scores

    The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participants 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). Clinically relevant improvement is defined as a ≥5-point change from Baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8,12, 16, 20 and 24

  4. Improvement of Fatigue Assessed as Change From Baseline in FACIT-F Scores

    The FACIT-Fatigue score was calculated according to a 13-item questionnaire that assesses self-reported fatigue and its impact upon daily activities and function. FACIT-F is a 13-item questionnaire. Participants scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the participants 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). Clinically relevant improvement is defined as a ≥5-point change from Baseline.

    Measured: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24

  5. Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 Percent (%), 50% or 70% Improvement

    The ACR response rates ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 were defined as ≥20%, ≥50% and ≥ 70% improvement, respectively, in: swollen joint count (SJC) (66 joints) and tender joint count (TJC) (68 joints) and 3 of the 5 remaining ACR parameters: Patient assessment of pain; Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity; Investigator Global Assessment of Disease Activity; participant self-rated assessment of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); and acute phase response (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR] or C-reactive protein [CRP]).

    Measured: Week 24

  6. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in TJC

    Sixty-eight (68) joints were assessed at each visit for tenderness; joints were assessed and classified as tender/not tender. Tender joint count 68 (TJC-68) was calculated as the number of tender joints from 68 joints; the number of tender joints was summed (maximum score 68). Calculated values were used for the analysis. A negative score indicated improvement.

    Measured: Week 24

  7. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in SJC

    Sixty-six (66) joints were assessed at each visit for swelling; joints were assessed and classified as swollen/not swollen. Swollen joint count 66 (SJC-66) was calculated as the number of swollen joints from 66 joints; the number of swollen joints was summed (maximum score 66). Calculated values were used for the analysis. A negative score indicated improvement.

    Measured: Week 24

  8. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in Patient Global Assessment of Pain

    The participant's assessment of their current level of pain was displayed on a 100-millimeter (mm) horizontal visual analog scale (VAS). The left-hand extreme of the line was described as "no pain" and the right-hand as "unbearable pain". The participant was asked to mark the line that corresponded to their current level of pain; the distance from the left edge was recorded.

    Measured: Week 24

  9. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity

    The participant's overall assessment of their current disease activity was displayed on a 100-mm horizontal VAS. The left-hand extreme of the line was described as "no disease activity" (symptom free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right-hand extreme as "maximum disease activity" (maximum arthritis disease activity). Participants were asked to assess their current level of disease activity and mark the line; the distance from the left edge was recorded.

    Measured: Week 24

  10. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in Investigator's Global Assessment of Disease Activity

    The physician's assessment of the participant's current disease activity was displayed on a 100-mm horizontal VAS. The left-hand extreme of the line was described as "no disease activity" (symptom-free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right-hand extreme was considered "maximum disease activity". The physician's global assessment of disease activity was completed by the Efficacy Assessor who could or could not be a physician. The assessor was asked to mark the line corresponding to their assessment of the participant's present level of disease activity; the distance from the left edge was recorded.

    Measured: Week 24

  11. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in HAQ-DI

    HAQ-DI includes 20 questions concerning participant's activities of daily life, grouped in 8 scales of 2 to 3 questions for each activity. To respond to each question, a four-level response (score of 0 to 3 points), with higher scores showing larger functional limitations, was chosen. Overall score was computed as the sum of the domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range was 0-3 where 0 (equals)=without difficulties; 1= with some difficulties; 2=with great difficulties; and 3=unable to perform these actions at all.

    Measured: Week 24

  12. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in High-Sensitivity CRP (Hs-CRP)

    hs-CRP is an acute phase reactant protein that is a clinical marker for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). hsCRP is measured in milligrams per liter (mg/L).

    Measured: Week 24

  13. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in ESR

    ESR is a blood test used to monitor therapy in inflammatory diseases such as RA and reflects acute phase reactant levels. ESR is measured in mm per hour (mm/hr); active disease in RA is defined by an ESR greater than 30 mm/hr.

    Measured: Week 24

  14. Percentage of Participants With a Response at Week 24 by European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Category

    Disease response was assessed using EULAR Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joint Count (DAS28) categories of Good, Moderate, or No Response. Good response was defined as a DAS28 score of less than (<)3.2 and improvement from baseline of >1.2; Moderate response was defined as a DAS28 score of 3.2-5.1 and improvement from baseline of 1.2-0.6 or a DAS28 score of >5.1 and improvement from baseline of >1.2; No response was defined as a DAS28 score of >5.1 and improvement from baseline of <1.2. Participants who discontinued prematurely were identified as non-responders.

    Measured: Week 24

  15. Percentage of Participants With a Response at Week 24 by DAS28 Category

    DAS28 calculated from the number of swollen joints (SJC) and tender joints (TJC) using the 28 joints count, the ESR (mm/hr) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment) with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated greater affectation due to disease activity). DAS28 ≤3.2=low disease activity, DAS28 >5.1=high disease activity and DAS <2.6=remission.

    Measured: Week 24

  16. Percent Change From Baseline to Week 24 in DAS28 Score

    DAS28 calculated from the number of swollen joints (SJC) and tender joints (TJC) using the 28 joints count, the ESR (mm/hr) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (participant rated arthritis activity assessment) with transformed scores ranging 0 to 10; higher scores indicated greater affectation due to disease activity). DAS28 ≤3.2=low disease activity, DAS28 >5.1=high disease activity and DAS <2.6=remission.

    Measured: Week 24

  17. Percentage of Participants With an Improvement of ≥1 g/dL in Hemoglobin

    Measured: Week 24

  18. Number of Days as Assessed by Short Form-Health and Labour Questionnaire (SF-HLQ)

    The SF-HLQ assessed productivity losses related to health problems in individuals with paid or unpaid work and consists of three modules (absenteeism from paid work, production losses without absenteeism from paid work and hindrance in the performance of paid and unpaid work). Any missed working days or number of worked days with reduced efficiency during the last month were reported.

    Measured: Baseline

  19. Change From Baseline to Weeks 12 and 24 in Number of Days as Assessed by SF-HLQ

    The SF-HLQ assessed productivity losses related to health problems in individuals with paid or unpaid work and consists of three modules (absenteeism from paid work, production losses without absenteeism from paid work and hindrance in the performance of paid and unpaid work). Any missed working days or number of worked days with reduced efficiency during the last month were reported.

    Measured: Weeks 12 and 24

  20. Number of Hours as Assessed by SF-HLQ

    Number of working hours lost, and number of hours of support in in taking over and performing usual household tasks in the last month: chores done by family members, chores done by other persons receiving no pay, home care, other paid care, total number of unpaid hours, and total number of hours during the last month were reported.

    Measured: Baseline

  21. Change From Baseline to Weeks 12 and 24 in Number of Hours as Assessed by SF-HLQ

    Number of working hours lost, and number of hours of support in in taking over and performing usual household tasks in the last month: chores done by family members, chores done by other persons receiving no pay, home care, other paid care, total number of unpaid hours, and total number of hours during the last month were reported. Changes from baseline were only calculated in participants who completed the questionnaire at all times (baseline, Week 12, and Week 24). Negative number indicates improvement.

    Measured: Baseline

  22. SF-HLQ Hindrance Score

    Participants were asked if their health problems hindered their paid work on a scale of 1 to 3 (1=no, 2=yes, slightly, 3=yes, very much) and their unpaid work including household work, going shopping, odd jobs, specific activities sharing the household on a scale of 0 to 3 (0=performed without being bothered by healthy problems; 1=performed although bothered by health problems; 2=not performed because of health problems; 3=not performed for reasons other than health problems). The total hindrance score for unpaid work was derived by adding up the item scores. This hindrance score is a measure of the hindrance experienced as a result of health problems during the performance of unpaid work. The minimum score per item for hindrance score was 0, maximum score was 2 (Score of 3 was not considered since the reasons were "other than health problems"). Total score was calculated by adding all 4 items together and ranged from 0 (best possible score) to 8 (worst possible score).

    Measured: Baseline

  23. Change From Baseline to Weeks 12 and 24 SF-HLQ Hindrance Score

    Participants were asked if health problems hindered their paid work on a scale of 1 to 3 (1=no, 2=yes, slightly, 3=yes, very much) and their unpaid work including household work, going shopping, odd jobs, specific activities sharing the household on a scale of 0 to 3 (0=performed without being bothered by healthy problems; 1=performed although bothered by health problems; 2=not performed because of health problems; 3=not performed for reasons other than health problems). Hindrance score is a measure of the hindrance experienced as a result of health problems during the performance of unpaid work. The minimum score per item for hindrance score was 0, maximum score was 2 (Score of 3 was not considered since the reasons were "other than health problems"). Total score was calculated by adding all 4 items together and ranged from 0 (best possible score) to 8 (worst possible score). A negative change from baseline indicates improvement.

    Measured: Baseline

  24. Efficiency as Assessed by SF-HLQ

    Participants were ask to rate their efficiency in working on a scale of of 0 to 10 (0=very worse, 10=as usual). Overall efficiency score was based on the first 6 items of Question 6, which is a descriptive instrument comprised of 7 items designed to evaluate the specific problems affecting production. These 7 items relate to the effect of health problems on concentration, work pace, the need to be alone, making decisions, postponing and transferring work to others. The participant can choose from 4 possible answers: (almost) never, sometimes, often and (nearly) always. Efficiency score range=6 to 24; higher scores indicate higher impairment.

    Measured: Baseline

  25. Change From Baseline to Weeks 12 and 24 in Efficiency as Assessed by SF-HLQ

    Participants were ask to rate their efficiency in working on a scale of of 0 to 10 (0=very worse, 10=as usual). Overall efficiency score was based on the first 6 items of Question 6, which is a descriptive instrument comprised of 7 items designed to evaluate the specific problems affecting production. These 7 items relate to the effect of health problems on concentration, work pace, the need to be alone, making decisions, postponing and transferring work to others. The participant can choose from 4 possible answers: (almost) never, sometimes, often and (nearly) always. Efficiency score range=6 to 24; higher scores indicate higher impairment. Change from baseline was only calculated for participants who completed the questionnaire at all times (baseline, Week 12 and Week 24). A negative change from baseline indicates improvement.

    Measured: Baseline

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted4 Aug 2009 (estimated)
  2. Study start31 Oct 2009
  3. Primary completion22 Jul 2011
  4. Study completion22 Jul 2011

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomised
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
105 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00951275
Sponsor's protocol ID
ML22462
Other IDs
2009-011105-17, 2009
Status last verified
Jun 2017
First submitted
30 Jul 2009
Last updated
3 Aug 2017

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 3 study testing tocilizumab [RoActemra/Actemra] and Standard DMARDs (Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs) in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis, run by Hoffmann-La Roche at 27 sites in Italy.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 3 Aug 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 27 sites in Italy. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 12 Aug 2014). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Improvement of Anemia at Week 4 Assessed as Change From Baseline in Hemoglobin (time frame: Week 4). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 3 Aug 2017.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in