Rheumatoid Arthritis
Conditions
Brief summary
This study will assess the safety and efficacy of rituximab combined with MTX in participants with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to anti-Tumor Necrosis (TNF) alpha therapy. The anticipated time in the study is up to 2 years and the target sample size is 500 participants. Eligible participants may receive re-treatment with rituximab under a separate protocol WA17531.
Interventions
1
2
3
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
* Adult participants 18-80 years of age with active RA for at least 6 months; * Received treatment for RA on an outpatient basis and experienced an inadequate response or intolerance to treatment with at least 1 anti-TNF alpha therapy (etanercept, infliximab or adalimumab); * Must have received MTX for a minimum of 12 weeks, with the last 4 weeks, prior to screening at a stable dose; * Participants with swollen joint count (SJC) and tender joint count (TJC) of at least 8 joints at screening and at randomization; * Radiographic evidence of at least 1 joint with a definite erosion due to RA; * Participants of reproductive potential must be using reliable contraceptive methods.
Exclusion criteria
* Bone or joint surgery within 8 weeks prior to screening or joint surgery planned within 24 weeks of randomization; * Class IV functional status of RA; * Previous treatment within 6 months with intravenous gamma globulin, or the Prosorba column; * Intraarticular or parenteral corticosteroids within 4 weeks prior to screening visit; * With a live vaccine within 4 weeks prior to randomization; * Previous treatment with rituximab or other cell-depleting therapies; * Concurrent treatment with any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (except for MTX) or any anti-TNF alfa factor or other biologic therapy; * History of severe allergic or anaphylactic reactions to humanized or murine monoclonal antibodies; * Evidence of significant uncontrolled concomitant diseases such as cardiovascular disease, nervous system, pulmonary, renal, hepatic, endocrine or gastrointestinal disorders; * Known contraindications to receiving rituximab; * Known active bacterial, viral, fungal, mycobacterial or other infection; * History of recurrent significant infection or history of recurrent bacterial infections; * Primary or secondary immunodeficiency (history of, or currently active); * History of cancer, including solid tumors and hematologic malignancies (except basal cell or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin that have been excised and cured); * Women who are pregnant or breast-feeding; * History of alcohol, drug or chemical abuse within 6 months prior to screening; * Neuropathies and neurovasculopathies which might interfere with pain evaluation; * Participants with poor peripheral venous access; * Intolerance or contraindications to oral or intravenous corticosteroids.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With American College of Rheumatology 20 Response at Week 24 | Week 24 | American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response is defined as \>= 20% improvement (reduction) in score compared with baseline for both tender joint count (TJC)-68 joints and swollen joint count (SJC)-66 joints, as well as for 3 of the additional 5 ACR core set variables: Patient's Assessment of Pain over the previous 24 hours using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ranging from score 0 (no pain) to 100 (unbearable pain); Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity over the previous 24 hours using a VAS ranging score 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (maximum disease activity); Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ):8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do) for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst); and acute-phase reactant, either C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants With ACR 70 Response at Week 24 | Week 24 | ACR 70 response is defined as a \>= 70% improvement (reduction) in score compared with baseline for both TJC -68 joints and SJC -66 joints, as well as for 3 of the additional 5 ACR core set variables: Patient's Assessment of Pain over the previous 24 hours: using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no pain to score '100'=unbearable pain; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity over the previous 24 hours using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no disease activity to score '100'=maximum disease activity; HAQ : Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ):which included 8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do), where the sum of scores was divided by the number of domains with a score for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst); and acute-phase reactant, either CRP or ESR. |
| Mean Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score of 28 Joints at Week 24 | From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 | The disease activity score (DAS28) is an evaluation index of rheumatoid arthritis. The DAS28 applies a mathematical formula based on the following parameters: 1. TJC-28 joints, 2. SJC -28 joints, 3. ESR or CRP measurement, 4. Participant's judgement on his own overall health (global health \[GH\]) status expressed by a VAS (0 \[no disease activity\] to 100 \[maximum disease activity\]). The mathematical formula is 0.56 × √28TJC + 0.28 × √28SJC + 0.7 x loge ESR + 0.014 × GH. The DAS28 scale ranges from score of 0 to 10, where lower scores indicate best disease control and higher scores indicate worsening of disease. Change from Baseline = difference between the score at Week 24 and the score at Baseline. |
| Percentage of Participants With DAS28 Low Disease Activity and DAS28 Remission at Week 24 | Week 24 | The DAS28 is an evaluation index of RA. The DAS28 applies a mathematical formula based on the following parameters: 1. TJC- 28 joints, 2. SJC- 28 joints, 3. ESR or CRP measurement, 4. Participant's judgement on his own overall health status (GH) expressed by a visual analogue scale VAS (0 \[no disease activity\] to 100 \[maximum disease activity\]). The mathematical formula is 0.56 × √28TJC + 0.28 × √28SJC + 0.7 x loge ESR + 0.014 × GH. The DAS28 scale ranges from score of 0 to 10. A participant was categorized as having low disease activity, if participant's DAS28 score was \<= 3.2, and was categorized as having clinical remission if participant's DAS28 score was \< 2.6. |
| Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24 | Week 24 | European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response is defined based on the DAS28 score and the EULAR response criteria (Van Gestel et al, 1996 and 1999). The DAS28 scale ranges from score of 0 to 10, where lower scores indicate best disease control and higher scores indicate worsening of disease. At a given visit, participants with a DAS28 score of \< 3.2 are considered good responders if the change from baseline in their DAS28 score is \>1.2. Participants with a DAS28 score \>= 3.2 to 5.1 are considered moderate responders if the change from baseline in their DAS28 score is \<=1.2 to \>=0.6. Participants with DAS28 score \>5.1 are considered non-responders if the change from baseline in their DAS28 score is \<=1.2 to \>=0.6. |
| Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 | Percentage change in the scores of the following parameters of ACR core set relative to respective baseline scores in both study arms was analyzed : SJC (28 and 66 joints) and TJC (28 and 66 joints), patient's global assessment and physician's global assessment based on disease activity (both are expressed by VAS \[0 = no disease activity to 100 = maximum disease activity\]), HAQ (based on HAQ disability index \[HAQDI\]) which included 8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do), where the sum of scores was divided by the number of domains with a score for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst), pain assessment using a VAS ranging from score 0 (no pain) to 100 (unbearable pain), CRP concentration, and ESR. |
| Number of Participants With an ACR 50 Response at Week 24 | Week 24 | ACR 50 response is defined as a \>= 50% improvement (reduction) in score compared with baseline for both TJC -68 joints and SJC -66 joints, as well as for 3 of the additional 5 ACR core set variables: Patient's Assessment of Pain over the previous 24 hours: using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no pain to score '100'=unbearable pain; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity over the previous 24 hours using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no disease activity to score '100'=maximum disease activity; HAQ : Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ):which included 8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do), where the sum of scores was divided by the number of domains with a score for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst); and acute-phase reactant, either CRP or ESR. |
| Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36 | From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 | The SF-36 determined participants' overall quality of life by assessing :1) limitations in physical functioning due to health problems; 2) limitations in usual daily activities because of physical health problems; 3) bodily pain; 4) general health perceptions; 5) vitality; 6) limitations in social functioning because of physical or emotional problems since last month; 7) limitations in usual work (house hold and outside) due to emotional problems 8) current and 1 year past status of health 9) general mental health. Scores on physical component were summed and averaged (range 0 \[worst\] to 100 \[best\]); If participants' had shown change from baseline in physical health component score \>5.42, it was considered as improved; score between -5.42 to 5.42 was considered as unchanged, and score \< -5.42 was considered as worsened. Change from Baseline = difference between the score of physical component at Week 24 and the score at Baseline. |
| Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36 | From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 | The SF-36 determined participants' overall quality of life by assessing :1) limitations in physical functioning due to health problems; 2) limitations in usual daily activities because of physical health problems; 3) bodily pain; 4) general health perceptions; 5) vitality; 6) limitations in social functioning because of physical or emotional problems since last month; 7) limitations in usual work (house hold and outside) due to emotional problems 8) current and 1 year past status of health 9) general mental health. Scores on mental component were summed and averaged (range = 0 \[worst\]-100 \[best\]); increase from baseline indicated improvement. If participants' had shown change from baseline in mental health score \>6.33, it was considered as improved; scores between -6.33 to 6.33 was considered unchanged, and score \<-6.33 was considered as worsened. Change from Baseline = difference between the mental component score at Week 24 and the score at Baseline. |
| Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | From Baseline (Day 1) to Weeks (W) 24, 56, and 104 | The Genant-modified Sharp scoring system assesses structural damage due to rheumatoid arthritis in radiographs. A score for erosions of 0-3.5 (8 gradations) is assigned for 14 joints in each hand and wrist, and 6 joints in each foot. Joint space narrowing scores of 0-4 (9 gradations) are assigned to 13 joints in each hand and 6 joints in each foot. The maximum erosion score is 40 x 3.5 = 140. The maximum joint space narrowing score is 38 x 4.0 = 152. Both the erosion and joint space narrowing scores are normalized to 145 and are added together for a maximum total Genant-modified Sharp score of 290. For all the three radiograph assessment, the minimum score is 0. A higher score indicates more damage and a negative change score indicates improvement. The change in score is to be calculated as: Change from Baseline = difference between the score at Weeks 24, 56, or 104 and the score at Baseline. |
| Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression | Up to Week 104 | The Genant-modified Sharp scoring system assesses structural damage due to rheumatoid arthritis in radiographs. A score for erosions of 0-3.5 (8 gradations) is assigned for 14 joints in each hand and wrist, and 6 joints in each foot. The maximum erosion score is 40 x 3.5 = 140 which is normalized to 145. The minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 145. A higher score indicates more damage and negative change score indicates improvement. |
| Mean Change From Baseline of Short Form 36 Total Scores at Week 24 | From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24 | The Short Form (SF)-36 determined participants' overall quality of life by assessing 1) limitations in physical functioning due to health problems; 2) limitations in usual daily activities because of physical health problems; 3) bodily pain; 4) general health perceptions; 5) vitality; 6) limitations in social functioning because of physical or emotional problems since last month; 7) limitations in usual work (house hold and outside) due to emotional problems 8) current and 1 year past status of health 9) general mental health. Transforming and standardizing these domains leads to the calculation of the physical component summary and mental component summary measures. Scores on each item were summed and averaged (range 0 \[worst\] to 100 \[best\]); increase in score from baseline indicated improvement. Change from Baseline = difference between the score at Week 24 and the score at Baseline. |
Countries
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom, United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
A total of 520 participants were enrolled in the study conducted from 02 May 2003 and 12 July 2012 in 11 countries.
Pre-assignment details
Of the total randomized 520 participants who met the eligibility criteria, four did not receive the study treatment and were not included in any analysis population.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate Eligible participants were administered placebo by intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 15 along with MTX 10-25 mg p.o. or parenterally once a week up to 24 weeks and were followed up to Week 104. | 208 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate Eligible Participants were administered rituximab 1000 mg as intravenous infusion on Days 1 and 15 along with MTX 10-25 mg p.o. or parenterally once a week up to Week 24 and were followed up to Week 104. | 308 |
| Total | 516 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Week 24 Analysis | Adverse Event | 1 | 8 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Due to clinical hold | 1 | 0 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Failure to return | 3 | 4 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Incorrect diagnosis and treatment | 0 | 1 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Lack of Efficacy | 83 | 37 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Participant unblinded (clinical hold) | 1 | 0 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Refused treatment | 5 | 5 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Rescue therapy | 2 | 0 |
| Week 24 Analysis | Went onto rescue therapy | 1 | 0 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Adverse Event | 2 | 5 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Death | 1 | 0 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Failure to return | 1 | 2 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Lack of Efficacy | 3 | 12 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Movement into re-treatment study | 77 | 183 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Other | 17 | 14 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Protocol Violation | 0 | 2 |
| Week 24 to Week 104 Analysis | Refused treatment | 4 | 7 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 55.0 years | 53.0 years | 53.0 years |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 168 Participants | 251 Participants | 419 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 40 Participants | 57 Participants | 97 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 152 / 208 | 225 / 308 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 26 / 208 | 50 / 308 |
Outcome results
Number of Participants With American College of Rheumatology 20 Response at Week 24
American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response is defined as \>= 20% improvement (reduction) in score compared with baseline for both tender joint count (TJC)-68 joints and swollen joint count (SJC)-66 joints, as well as for 3 of the additional 5 ACR core set variables: Patient's Assessment of Pain over the previous 24 hours using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) ranging from score 0 (no pain) to 100 (unbearable pain); Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity over the previous 24 hours using a VAS ranging score 0 (no disease activity) to 100 (maximum disease activity); Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ):8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do) for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst); and acute-phase reactant, either C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR).
Time frame: Week 24
Population: Intent to treat (ITT) population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With American College of Rheumatology 20 Response at Week 24 | 36 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With American College of Rheumatology 20 Response at Week 24 | 153 participants |
Mean Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score of 28 Joints at Week 24
The disease activity score (DAS28) is an evaluation index of rheumatoid arthritis. The DAS28 applies a mathematical formula based on the following parameters: 1. TJC-28 joints, 2. SJC -28 joints, 3. ESR or CRP measurement, 4. Participant's judgement on his own overall health (global health \[GH\]) status expressed by a VAS (0 \[no disease activity\] to 100 \[maximum disease activity\]). The mathematical formula is 0.56 × √28TJC + 0.28 × √28SJC + 0.7 x loge ESR + 0.014 × GH. The DAS28 scale ranges from score of 0 to 10, where lower scores indicate best disease control and higher scores indicate worsening of disease. Change from Baseline = difference between the score at Week 24 and the score at Baseline.
Time frame: From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score of 28 Joints at Week 24 | -0.4 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.17 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score of 28 Joints at Week 24 | -1.9 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.6 |
Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score
The Genant-modified Sharp scoring system assesses structural damage due to rheumatoid arthritis in radiographs. A score for erosions of 0-3.5 (8 gradations) is assigned for 14 joints in each hand and wrist, and 6 joints in each foot. Joint space narrowing scores of 0-4 (9 gradations) are assigned to 13 joints in each hand and 6 joints in each foot. The maximum erosion score is 40 x 3.5 = 140. The maximum joint space narrowing score is 38 x 4.0 = 152. Both the erosion and joint space narrowing scores are normalized to 145 and are added together for a maximum total Genant-modified Sharp score of 290. For all the three radiograph assessment, the minimum score is 0. A higher score indicates more damage and a negative change score indicates improvement. The change in score is to be calculated as: Change from Baseline = difference between the score at Weeks 24, 56, or 104 and the score at Baseline.
Time frame: From Baseline (Day 1) to Weeks (W) 24, 56, and 104
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Sharp-Genant total score, W56, n = 184, 273 | 2.31 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.283 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Erosion score, W104, n = 186,279 | 1.81 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 4.187 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Erosion score, W24, n = 201, 298 | -1.6 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.15 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Joint space narrowing score, W24, n = 201, 298 | -2.5 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.71 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Sharp-Genant total score, W104, n = 186,279 | 2.82 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 6.398 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Joint space narrowing score, W56, n = 184, 273 | 0.99 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.571 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Erosion score, W56, n = 184, 273 | 1.32 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.155 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Joint space narrowing score, W104, n = 186,279 | 1.01 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.618 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Sharp-Genant total score, W24, n = 201, 298 | -4.3 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.09 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Joint space narrowing score, W104, n = 186,279 | 0.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.563 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Sharp-Genant total score, W24, n = 201, 298 | -1.2 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 20.9 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Sharp-Genant total score, W56, n = 184, 273 | 1.00 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.751 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Sharp-Genant total score, W104, n = 186,279 | 1.16 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.429 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Erosion score, W24, n = 201, 298 | -0.4 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.45 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Erosion score, W56, n = 184, 273 | 0.59 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.843 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Erosion score, W104, n = 186,279 | 0.73 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.262 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Joint space narrowing score, W24, n = 201, 298 | -0.9 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.9 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline in the Genant-modified Sharp Joint Space Narrowing Score, Genant-modified Sharp Total Score, and Erosion Score | Joint space narrowing score, W56, n = 184, 273 | 0.41 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.323 |
Mean Change From Baseline of Short Form 36 Total Scores at Week 24
The Short Form (SF)-36 determined participants' overall quality of life by assessing 1) limitations in physical functioning due to health problems; 2) limitations in usual daily activities because of physical health problems; 3) bodily pain; 4) general health perceptions; 5) vitality; 6) limitations in social functioning because of physical or emotional problems since last month; 7) limitations in usual work (house hold and outside) due to emotional problems 8) current and 1 year past status of health 9) general mental health. Transforming and standardizing these domains leads to the calculation of the physical component summary and mental component summary measures. Scores on each item were summed and averaged (range 0 \[worst\] to 100 \[best\]); increase in score from baseline indicated improvement. Change from Baseline = difference between the score at Week 24 and the score at Baseline.
Time frame: From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants with available data at the time of evaluation were analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline of Short Form 36 Total Scores at Week 24 | Physical score | 0.9 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 5.65 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline of Short Form 36 Total Scores at Week 24 | Mental health score | 1.3 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 9.43 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline of Short Form 36 Total Scores at Week 24 | Physical score | 5.8 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.47 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Mean Change From Baseline of Short Form 36 Total Scores at Week 24 | Mental health score | 4.7 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 11.75 |
Number of Participants With ACR 70 Response at Week 24
ACR 70 response is defined as a \>= 70% improvement (reduction) in score compared with baseline for both TJC -68 joints and SJC -66 joints, as well as for 3 of the additional 5 ACR core set variables: Patient's Assessment of Pain over the previous 24 hours: using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no pain to score '100'=unbearable pain; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity over the previous 24 hours using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no disease activity to score '100'=maximum disease activity; HAQ : Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ):which included 8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do), where the sum of scores was divided by the number of domains with a score for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst); and acute-phase reactant, either CRP or ESR.
Time frame: Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With ACR 70 Response at Week 24 | 3 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With ACR 70 Response at Week 24 | 37 participants |
Number of Participants With an ACR 50 Response at Week 24
ACR 50 response is defined as a \>= 50% improvement (reduction) in score compared with baseline for both TJC -68 joints and SJC -66 joints, as well as for 3 of the additional 5 ACR core set variables: Patient's Assessment of Pain over the previous 24 hours: using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no pain to score '100'=unbearable pain; Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity over the previous 24 hours using a VAS ranging from score '0'=no disease activity to score '100'=maximum disease activity; HAQ : Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ):which included 8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do), where the sum of scores was divided by the number of domains with a score for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst); and acute-phase reactant, either CRP or ESR.
Time frame: Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With an ACR 50 Response at Week 24 | 11 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With an ACR 50 Response at Week 24 | 80 participants |
Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36
The SF-36 determined participants' overall quality of life by assessing :1) limitations in physical functioning due to health problems; 2) limitations in usual daily activities because of physical health problems; 3) bodily pain; 4) general health perceptions; 5) vitality; 6) limitations in social functioning because of physical or emotional problems since last month; 7) limitations in usual work (house hold and outside) due to emotional problems 8) current and 1 year past status of health 9) general mental health. Scores on physical component were summed and averaged (range 0 \[worst\] to 100 \[best\]); If participants' had shown change from baseline in physical health component score \>5.42, it was considered as improved; score between -5.42 to 5.42 was considered as unchanged, and score \< -5.42 was considered as worsened. Change from Baseline = difference between the score of physical component at Week 24 and the score at Baseline.
Time frame: From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants with available data at the time of evaluation were analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36 | Improved | 25 participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36 | Unchanged | 158 participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36 | Worsened | 14 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36 | Improved | 141 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36 | Unchanged | 136 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in the Physical Component Scores of SF-36 | Worsened | 17 participants |
Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36
The SF-36 determined participants' overall quality of life by assessing :1) limitations in physical functioning due to health problems; 2) limitations in usual daily activities because of physical health problems; 3) bodily pain; 4) general health perceptions; 5) vitality; 6) limitations in social functioning because of physical or emotional problems since last month; 7) limitations in usual work (house hold and outside) due to emotional problems 8) current and 1 year past status of health 9) general mental health. Scores on mental component were summed and averaged (range = 0 \[worst\]-100 \[best\]); increase from baseline indicated improvement. If participants' had shown change from baseline in mental health score \>6.33, it was considered as improved; scores between -6.33 to 6.33 was considered unchanged, and score \<-6.33 was considered as worsened. Change from Baseline = difference between the mental component score at Week 24 and the score at Baseline.
Time frame: From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants with available data at the time of evaluation were analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36 | Improved | 40 participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36 | Unchanged | 128 participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36 | Worsened | 29 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36 | Improved | 111 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36 | Unchanged | 144 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Change From Baseline in the Mental Component Scores of SF-36 | Worsened | 39 participants |
Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24
European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response is defined based on the DAS28 score and the EULAR response criteria (Van Gestel et al, 1996 and 1999). The DAS28 scale ranges from score of 0 to 10, where lower scores indicate best disease control and higher scores indicate worsening of disease. At a given visit, participants with a DAS28 score of \< 3.2 are considered good responders if the change from baseline in their DAS28 score is \>1.2. Participants with a DAS28 score \>= 3.2 to 5.1 are considered moderate responders if the change from baseline in their DAS28 score is \<=1.2 to \>=0.6. Participants with DAS28 score \>5.1 are considered non-responders if the change from baseline in their DAS28 score is \<=1.2 to \>=0.6.
Time frame: Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24 | No response | 157 participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24 | Moderate response | 40 participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24 | Good response | 4 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24 | No response | 105 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24 | Moderate response | 149 participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Number of Participants With Good, Moderate, or no European League Against Rheumatism Responses at Week 24 | Good response | 44 participants |
Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score
Percentage change in the scores of the following parameters of ACR core set relative to respective baseline scores in both study arms was analyzed : SJC (28 and 66 joints) and TJC (28 and 66 joints), patient's global assessment and physician's global assessment based on disease activity (both are expressed by VAS \[0 = no disease activity to 100 = maximum disease activity\]), HAQ (based on HAQ disability index \[HAQDI\]) which included 8 domains (dressing/grooming, arising, eating, walking, hygiene, reach, grip; common daily activities) rated on a 4-point scale (0=without any difficulty to 3=unable to do), where the sum of scores was divided by the number of domains with a score for a total possible score of 0 (best) to 3 (worst), pain assessment using a VAS ranging from score 0 (no pain) to 100 (unbearable pain), CRP concentration, and ESR.
Time frame: From Baseline (Day 1) to Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | TJC (68) | 7.2 percent change | Standard Deviation 144.58 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | SJC (28) | -7.1 percent change | Standard Deviation 55.35 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | Patient's pain assessment | 2.8 percent change | Standard Deviation 55.61 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | TJC (28) | 15.7 percent change | Standard Deviation 195.94 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | HAQ | -2.0 percent change | Standard Deviation 30.46 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | SJC (66) | -5.6 percent change | Standard Deviation 59.19 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | CRP | 80.0 percent change | Standard Deviation 452.94 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | Physician's global assessment | -4.2 percent change | Standard Deviation 47.23 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | ESR | 11.4 percent change | Standard Deviation 95.95 |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | Patient's global assessment | -3.1 percent change | Standard Deviation 44.01 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | ESR | -29.3 percent change | Standard Deviation 59.92 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | SJC (66) | -43.0 percent change | Standard Deviation 52.65 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | SJC (28) | -41.3 percent change | Standard Deviation 52.77 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | TJC (68) | -41.8 percent change | Standard Deviation 52.39 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | TJC (28) | -42.0 percent change | Standard Deviation 63.47 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | Physician's global assessment | -40.8 percent change | Standard Deviation 39.31 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | Patient's global assessment | -25.4 percent change | Standard Deviation 117.9 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | Patient's pain assessment | -23.8 percent change | Standard Deviation 131.59 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | HAQ | -24.3 percent change | Standard Deviation 34.92 |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage Change From Baseline in the ACR Core Set (SJC, TJC, Patient's and Physician's Global Assessments, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Pain, C-Reactive Protein, and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate) Score | CRP | -36.3 percent change | Standard Deviation 80.3 |
Percentage of Participants With DAS28 Low Disease Activity and DAS28 Remission at Week 24
The DAS28 is an evaluation index of RA. The DAS28 applies a mathematical formula based on the following parameters: 1. TJC- 28 joints, 2. SJC- 28 joints, 3. ESR or CRP measurement, 4. Participant's judgement on his own overall health status (GH) expressed by a visual analogue scale VAS (0 \[no disease activity\] to 100 \[maximum disease activity\]). The mathematical formula is 0.56 × √28TJC + 0.28 × √28SJC + 0.7 x loge ESR + 0.014 × GH. The DAS28 scale ranges from score of 0 to 10. A participant was categorized as having low disease activity, if participant's DAS28 score was \<= 3.2, and was categorized as having clinical remission if participant's DAS28 score was \< 2.6.
Time frame: Week 24
Population: The ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study drug. Participants whom treatment allocation was unblinded and who received treatment prior to randomization were excluded.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants With DAS28 Low Disease Activity and DAS28 Remission at Week 24 | Low disease activity | 2 percentage of participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants With DAS28 Low Disease Activity and DAS28 Remission at Week 24 | Remission | 0 percentage of participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants With DAS28 Low Disease Activity and DAS28 Remission at Week 24 | Low disease activity | 15 percentage of participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants With DAS28 Low Disease Activity and DAS28 Remission at Week 24 | Remission | 9 percentage of participants |
Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression
The Genant-modified Sharp scoring system assesses structural damage due to rheumatoid arthritis in radiographs. A score for erosions of 0-3.5 (8 gradations) is assigned for 14 joints in each hand and wrist, and 6 joints in each foot. The maximum erosion score is 40 x 3.5 = 140 which is normalized to 145. The minimum score is 0 and the maximum score is 145. A higher score indicates more damage and negative change score indicates improvement.
Time frame: Up to Week 104
Population: ITT population included all randomized participants who received any part of an infusion of study medication. Participants with available data at the time of evaluation were analyzed.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression | Baseline to Year 1, n = 186, 278 | 51 percentage of participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression | Year 1 to Year 2, n = 186, 278 | 58 percentage of participants |
| Placebo Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression | Baseline to Year 2, n = 187, 281 | 44 percentage of participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression | Baseline to Year 1, n = 186, 278 | 66 percentage of participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression | Year 1 to Year 2, n = 186, 278 | 73 percentage of participants |
| Rituximab Plus Methotrexate | Percentage of Participants Without Erosive Progression | Baseline to Year 2, n = 187, 281 | 60 percentage of participants |