Skip to content

Observational Study of RoActemra/Actemra (Tocilizumab) in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

A Multi National, Multi-center Non-interventional Study in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Patients Treated With Tocilizumab (Actemra)

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01579006
Enrollment
184
Registered
2012-04-17
Start date
2012-05-31
Completion date
2014-03-31
Last updated
2016-03-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Brief summary

This multi-center, observational study will evaluate the clinical practice patterns, efficacy and safety of RoActemra/Actemra in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response (or were intolerant to) treatment with non-biological DMARDs or with one biological agent. Data will be collected from each eligible patient initiated on RoActemra/Actemra treatment by their treating physician according to approved label for 6 months from start of treatment.

Interventions

DRUGTocilizumab

Sponsors

Clalit Health Services
CollaboratorOTHER
Hoffmann-La Roche
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Adult patients, \>/= 18 years of age * Moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis * Inadequate response (or intolerant) to non-biological DMARDs or one biologic agent * Patients initiating treatment with RoActemra/Actemra on their physician's decision (in accordance with the local label), including patients who started treatment with RoActemra/Actemra in the 8 weeks prior to the enrolment visit

Exclusion criteria

* RoActemra/Actemra treatment more than 8 weeks prior to the enrolment visit * Previous RoActemra/Actemra treatment in a clinical trial or for compassionate use * Enrolled in an ongoing clinical trial and/or treatment with any investigational agent within 4 weeks (or 5 half-lives of the investigational agent, whichever is longer) before starting treatment with RoActemra/Actemra * History of autoimmune disease or any joint inflammatory disease other than rheumatoid arthritis

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Percentage of Participants on TCZ Treatment at 6 Months After Treatment Initiation6 months
Percentage of Participants on TCZ Treatment at 5-6 Months After Treatment Initiation5-6 months

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalUp to 6 monthsObjective intolerance was determined by medical observation; subjective intolerance was determined by the participant; lack of efficacy was determined by physician discretion.
Percentage of Participants Who Received Biological RA Treatment Prior to Start of StudyPrior to study start (8 weeks)Biological RA treatment exposure was evaluated for all participants. Prior biological RA treatment included participants who were treated with biological RA treatment 8 weeks before being included in the study. Percentage of participants who did not receive any biological RA treatment and percentage of participants who received one or more biologic RA treatments were reported.
Percentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsUp to 6 monthsPrevious biologic RA treatment included adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and other (any other previous biologic RA treatment). Same participants may be counted in more than one previous biologic RA treatment category.
Duration of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsUp to 6 monthsPrevious biologic RA treatment included adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and other (any other previous biologic RA treatment).
Percentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsUp to 6 monthsLack of efficacy was determined by physician discretion. Previous biologic RA treatment included adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and other (any other previous biologic RA treatment).
Percentage of Participants With Dose Modifications6 monthsTCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.
Percentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose Modification6 monthsTCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations. Only those participants who had dose modifications were reported.
Mean Dose at 6 Months6 monthsTCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.
Mean Number of Dose Modifications at 6 Months6 monthsTCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.
Mean Dosing Interval of Treatment at 6 Months6 monthsTCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations. The mean dosing interval between different TCZ administrations (Adm) by participants within 6 months observational period was presented.
Percentage of Participants Who Discontinued From TCZ for Safety Versus Efficacy6 monthsThe safety variable measured the number of participants who discontinued TCZ due to adverse reactions to TCZ, and the efficacy variable measured the participants who discontinued from TCZ due to lack of efficacy according to criteria of the treating physician.
Time to Restoration of Initial Dosing Regimen6 months
Percentage of Participants Who Adhered to the Dosing Regimen Recommended by Physician6 monthsA participant's adherence was calculated based on the adverse event or laboratory abnormality experienced by the participants who required dose modifications as per local TCZ label or protocol.
Percentage of Participants on TCZ MonotherapyUp to 6 monthsTCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations. Only those participants who had TCZ as monotherapy were reported.
Change From Baseline in Tender Joint Count (TJC) (68 Joints) at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe number of tender joints was recorded on the joint assessment form, with no tenderness = 0, and tenderness = 1, for 68 joints, giving a total possible TJC score of 0 to 68.
Change From Baseline in Swollen Joint Count (SJC) (66 Joints) at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe number of swollen joints was recorded on the joint assessment form, with no swelling = 0, and swelling =1, for 66 joints, giving a total possible SJC score of 0 to 66.
Percentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineBaselineSystemic manifestations included fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, sjogren's syndrome, anemia, rheumatoid nodules, pulmonary fibrosis, vasculitis, peripheral neuropathy or mononeuropathy, scleritis, episcleritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, low high-density lipoproteins, diabetes type 1 and type 2, metabolic syndrome, carotid artery disease, transient ischemic attacks, embolic stroke, atherothrombotic stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class l/ll, coronary heart disease(angina pectoris/myocardial), aortic aneurism, peripheral arterial occlusive disease, percutaneous coronary interventions, coronary artery bypass, carotid endarterectomy and peripheral arterial bypass.
Percentage of Participants With European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Month 66 monthsClinical response assessed as per EULAR categorical DAS28 response criteria was defined as clinically meaningful improvement at a particular time point. EULAR response was based on change from baseline (CFB) in the DAS28 score and also on the actual DAS28 score at the time point so was more reflective of the current status of the participant. The DAS28 score was a measure of the participant's disease activity, based on the TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), PGH (mm), and ESR (mm/hr). DAS28 total scores ranged from 0 to approximately 10. Scores \<2.6 = best disease control and scores \>5.1 = worse disease control. A negative CFB indicated clinically meaningful improvement. EULAR Good response: DAS28 \<=3.2 and a CFB \<-1.2. EULAR Moderate response: DAS28 \>3.2 to ≤ 5.1 or a CFB \< -0.6 to ≥ -1.2. EULAR No response: DAS28 ≤3.2 or CFB \>=-0.6, DAS28 \>3.2 to \<=5.1 or CFB \>=-0.6 and DAS28 \>5.1 or CFB \>=-0.6.
Change From Baseline in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) Score at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe SDAI was a combined index for measuring disease activity in RA which reflected the numerical sum of five outcome parameters: TJC and SJC based on a 28-joint assessment, PGH and physician's global assessment (PhGH) of disease activity, assessed on 0-100 mm VAS where 0 = no disease activity and 100 = worst disease activity, and C-reactive protein (CRP) (milligrams per deciliter \[mg/dL\]). SDAI total score = 0-86. A SDAI score of \<=3.3 represented clinical remission, a score of \<=11.0 represents low disease activity, a score of \<=26.0 represented moderate disease activity and a score of \>26.0 represented high (or severe) disease.
Change From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) Score at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe CDAI was a combined index for measuring disease activity in RA and used to evaluate disease activity in the absence of laboratory testing of CRP and ESR. It was the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: TJC and SJC based on a 28-joint assessment, PGH and PhGH (assessed on 0-100 mm); VAS (0 = no disease activity and 100 = worst disease activity). CDAI total score = 0-76. A CDAI score of \<=2.8 represented clinical remission, a score of \<=10.0 represented low disease activity, a score of \<=22.0 represented moderate disease activity and a score of \>22.0 represented high (or severe) disease.
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved 20% Improvement in ACR (ACR20) Response at Month 66 monthsACR response was calculated based on total joint count evaluation (28 or 66/68 joint count) and other clinical and laboratory assessments. A positive ACR20 response required at least a 20% improvement (reduction) compared to baseline in swollen joint count (66 joints) and tender joint count (68 joints) and at least 3 of the following 5 assessments: participant's global assessment of pain, PGH, PhGH (all 3 assessed at 0 \[good\] to 100 mm \[worst\] VAS scale), participant assessment of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (assessed on a 0 to 3 scale, where higher scores represented higher disease activity), Acute phase reactant (CRP or ESR). A reduction in the level of and acute phase reactants was considered an improvement.
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved 50% Improvement in ACR (ACR50) Response at Month 66 monthsACR response was calculated based on total joint count evaluation (28 or 66/68 joint count) and other clinical and laboratory assessments. A positive ACR50 response required at least a 50% improvement (reduction) compared to baseline in swollen joint count (66 joints) and tender joint count (68 joints) and at least 3 of the following 5 assessments: (participant's global assessment of pain, PGH, PhGH (all 3 assessed at 0 \[good\] to 100 mm \[worst\] VAS scale), participant assessment of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (assessed on a 0 to 3 scale, where higher scores represented higher disease activity), and acute phase reactant (CRP or ESR). A reduction in the level of acute phase reactants was considered an improvement.
Percentage of Participants Who Achieved 70% Improvement in ACR (ACR70) Response at Month 66 monthsACR response was calculated based on total joint count evaluation (28 or 66/68 joint count) and other clinical and laboratory assessments. A positive ACR70 response required at least a 70% improvement (reduction) compared to baseline in swollen joint count (66 joints) and tender joint count (68 joints) and at least 3 of the following 5 assessments: (participant's global assessment of pain, PGH, PhGH (all 3 assessed at 0 \[good\] to 100 mm \[worst\] VAS scale), participant assessment of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (assessed on a 0 to 3 scale, where higher scores represented higher disease activity), and acute phase reactant (CRP or ESR). A reduction in the level of acute phase reactants was considered an improvement.
Change From Baseline in CRP at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe test for CRP was a laboratory measurement for evaluation of an acute phase reactant of inflammation through the use of an ultrasensitive assay. The serum concentration of CRP was measured in mg/dL. A reduction in the level was considered an improvement.
Change From Baseline in ESR at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsESR was a laboratory test that provided a non-specific measure of inflammation. The test assessed the rate at which red blood cells fell in a test tube. ESR was measured in mm/hr. A reduction in the level was considered an improvement.
Change From Baseline in PhGH at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe PhGH was assessed using a 0 to 100 mm horizontal VAS by the physician. The left-hand extreme of the line equaled 0 mm, and was described as no disease activity (symptom-free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right-hand extreme equaled 100 mm, as maximum disease activity (maximum arthritis disease activity). A negative change from baseline indicated improvement.
Change From Baseline in PGH of Disease Activity at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe PGH of disease activity was assessed using a 0 to 100 mm horizontal VAS by the participant. The left-hand extreme of the line equaled 0 mm, and was described as no disease activity (symptom-free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right-hand extreme equaled 100 mm, as maximum disease activity (maximum arthritis disease activity). A negative change from baseline indicated improvement.
Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsThe HAQ-DI was a participant self-reported questionnaire for assessing the extent of a participant's functional ability. It consisted of 20 questions in 8 categories (dressing and grooming, rising, eating, walking, reach, grip, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities). Each question had 4 response options, ranging from no difficulty to unable to do, corresponding to scores from 0 to 3. The HAQ-DI scale was an average of all the scores and ranged from 0 to 3, where higher scores represented higher disease activity. A score of \<0.5 represented clinical remission. A participant achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in HAQ-DI if they had a reduction from baseline of \>=0.22.
Change From Baseline in Participant's Assessment of Fatigue Using VAS at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsFatigue was evaluated by a VAS. Participants marked on a 100 mm horizontal VAS the level of fatigue that they have experienced, ranging from 0 (no fatigue) to 100 (extreme fatigue).
Change From Baseline in Participant's Assessment of RA-Related Pain at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsSeverity of pain was evaluated by a VAS. Participants marked on a 100 mm horizontal VAS the severity of pain that they had experienced because of their RA, ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (unbearable pain). A decrease of 10 points was considered clinically meaningful.
Change From Administration 1 in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)- Fatigue Questionnaire at Month 6Administration 1 (Baseline), 6 monthsThe FACIT Measurement System was a collection of health-related quality of life questionnaires targeted to the management of chronic illness and included questions on Physical Well-Being, Social/Family Well-Being, Emotional Well-Being and Functional Well-Being. The FACIT Fatigue Scale was a 13-item tool that measured an individual's level of fatigue during their usual daily activities over the past week. The level of fatigue was measured on a five-point Likert scale (4 = not at all fatigued to 0 = very much fatigued). The total score of FACIT ranged from 0 to 160. An increase of 4 points in the FACIT-Fatigue score was considered clinically meaningful. Change from Administration 1 was reported for individual administration schedules. TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.
Change From Baseline in Morning Stiffness as Assessed Using VAS at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsMorning stiffness was defined by the time elapsed between the time of usual awakening (even if not in the morning) and the time the participant was as limber as he/she would be during a day involving typical activities. Morning stiffness was assessed on a 100 mm VAS, where 0= none and 100= very severe.
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score Based on 28 Joints (DAS28) at Month 6Baseline, 6 monthsDAS28 was calculated from SJC and TJC using an assessment of 28 joints, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (milliliter per hour \[mm/hr\]), and Patient's Global Assessment (PGH) of disease activity (measured on a 0 to 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale \[VAS\] where 0=no disease activity and 100=worst disease activity). DAS28 was calculated using the following formula: DAS28 = 0.56\*square root (sqrt) (TJC28) + 0.28\*sqrt(SJC28) + 0.70\*natural logarithm (ln) (ESR) + 0.014\*PGH of disease activity. Total score range: 0-10, with a higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28 \<=3.2 implied low disease activity, DAS \>3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity and DAS \>5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28 \<2.6 = clinical remission.
Percentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyPrior to study start (8 weeks) and Baseline up to 6 monthsDMARDs exposure was evaluated for all participants. Prior DMARDs treatment included participants, who were treated with DMARDs 8 weeks and according to physician's discretion before being included in the study. DMARDs treatment at baseline included participants who were receiving DMARDs when they were included in the study and continued with this concomitant medication in addition to TCZ. Only those participants who received DMARDs prior to start of study and at Baseline up to 6 months were reported.

Countries

Israel

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Rheumatoid Arthritis Participants
Participants with moderate to severe RA, according to the ACR criteria and the DAS28, who have had an inadequate response (or were intolerant) to treatment with non-biological DMARDs or with one biological agent in whom the attending physician decided to start treatment with TCZ (according to local label) at the time of recruitment or up to 8 week prior to the time of recruitment were observed for 6 months.
184
Total184

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyAdverse Event13
Overall StudyDue to participant's health fund1
Overall StudyLack of Efficacy10
Overall StudyNon-compliance3
Overall StudyScheduled surgery1
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject5

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicRheumatoid Arthritis Participants
Age, Continuous54.8 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.7
Sex: Female, Male
Female
141 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
43 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
77 / 184
serious
Total, serious adverse events
17 / 184

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Participants on TCZ Treatment at 5-6 Months After Treatment Initiation

Time frame: 5-6 months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ Treatment at 5-6 Months After Treatment Initiation85.9 percentage of participants
Primary

Percentage of Participants on TCZ Treatment at 6 Months After Treatment Initiation

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ Treatment at 6 Months After Treatment Initiation42.4 percentage of participants
Secondary

Change From Administration 1 in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)- Fatigue Questionnaire at Month 6

The FACIT Measurement System was a collection of health-related quality of life questionnaires targeted to the management of chronic illness and included questions on Physical Well-Being, Social/Family Well-Being, Emotional Well-Being and Functional Well-Being. The FACIT Fatigue Scale was a 13-item tool that measured an individual's level of fatigue during their usual daily activities over the past week. The level of fatigue was measured on a five-point Likert scale (4 = not at all fatigued to 0 = very much fatigued). The total score of FACIT ranged from 0 to 160. An increase of 4 points in the FACIT-Fatigue score was considered clinically meaningful. Change from Administration 1 was reported for individual administration schedules. TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.

Time frame: Administration 1 (Baseline), 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and n= participants who were evaluable for each category.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Administration 1 in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)- Fatigue Questionnaire at Month 6Change at Administration 3 (n=39)11.7 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.1
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Administration 1 in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)- Fatigue Questionnaire at Month 6Change at Administration 4 (n=35)11.9 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.3
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Administration 1 in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)- Fatigue Questionnaire at Month 6Change at Administration 5 (n=31)17.3 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.5
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Administration 1 in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)- Fatigue Questionnaire at Month 6Change at Administration 6 (n=33)20.0 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.9
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Administration 1 in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)- Fatigue Questionnaire at Month 6Change at Administration 2 (n=38)7.3 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.7
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) Score at Month 6

The CDAI was a combined index for measuring disease activity in RA and used to evaluate disease activity in the absence of laboratory testing of CRP and ESR. It was the numerical sum of 4 outcome parameters: TJC and SJC based on a 28-joint assessment, PGH and PhGH (assessed on 0-100 mm); VAS (0 = no disease activity and 100 = worst disease activity). CDAI total score = 0-76. A CDAI score of \<=2.8 represented clinical remission, a score of \<=10.0 represented low disease activity, a score of \<=22.0 represented moderate disease activity and a score of \>22.0 represented high (or severe) disease.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) Score at Month 6-17.3 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.2
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in CRP at Month 6

The test for CRP was a laboratory measurement for evaluation of an acute phase reactant of inflammation through the use of an ultrasensitive assay. The serum concentration of CRP was measured in mg/dL. A reduction in the level was considered an improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in CRP at Month 6-1.6 mg/dLStandard Deviation 2.5
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score Based on 28 Joints (DAS28) at Month 6

DAS28 was calculated from SJC and TJC using an assessment of 28 joints, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (milliliter per hour \[mm/hr\]), and Patient's Global Assessment (PGH) of disease activity (measured on a 0 to 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale \[VAS\] where 0=no disease activity and 100=worst disease activity). DAS28 was calculated using the following formula: DAS28 = 0.56\*square root (sqrt) (TJC28) + 0.28\*sqrt(SJC28) + 0.70\*natural logarithm (ln) (ESR) + 0.014\*PGH of disease activity. Total score range: 0-10, with a higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28 \<=3.2 implied low disease activity, DAS \>3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate disease activity and DAS \>5.1 implied high disease activity, and DAS28 \<2.6 = clinical remission.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Disease Activity Score Based on 28 Joints (DAS28) at Month 6-2.7 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.7
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in ESR at Month 6

ESR was a laboratory test that provided a non-specific measure of inflammation. The test assessed the rate at which red blood cells fell in a test tube. ESR was measured in mm/hr. A reduction in the level was considered an improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in ESR at Month 6-34.4 mm/hrStandard Deviation 26.1
Secondary

Change From Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 6

The HAQ-DI was a participant self-reported questionnaire for assessing the extent of a participant's functional ability. It consisted of 20 questions in 8 categories (dressing and grooming, rising, eating, walking, reach, grip, hygiene, and carrying out daily activities). Each question had 4 response options, ranging from no difficulty to unable to do, corresponding to scores from 0 to 3. The HAQ-DI scale was an average of all the scores and ranged from 0 to 3, where higher scores represented higher disease activity. A score of \<0.5 represented clinical remission. A participant achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in HAQ-DI if they had a reduction from baseline of \>=0.22.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: ITT population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in HAQ-DI at Month 6-0.3 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Morning Stiffness as Assessed Using VAS at Month 6

Morning stiffness was defined by the time elapsed between the time of usual awakening (even if not in the morning) and the time the participant was as limber as he/she would be during a day involving typical activities. Morning stiffness was assessed on a 100 mm VAS, where 0= none and 100= very severe.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Morning Stiffness as Assessed Using VAS at Month 6-26.6 mmStandard Deviation 34.9
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Participant's Assessment of Fatigue Using VAS at Month 6

Fatigue was evaluated by a VAS. Participants marked on a 100 mm horizontal VAS the level of fatigue that they have experienced, ranging from 0 (no fatigue) to 100 (extreme fatigue).

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Participant's Assessment of Fatigue Using VAS at Month 6-17.9 mmStandard Deviation 31.1
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Participant's Assessment of RA-Related Pain at Month 6

Severity of pain was evaluated by a VAS. Participants marked on a 100 mm horizontal VAS the severity of pain that they had experienced because of their RA, ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (unbearable pain). A decrease of 10 points was considered clinically meaningful.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Participant's Assessment of RA-Related Pain at Month 6-23.7 mmStandard Deviation 32.6
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in PGH of Disease Activity at Month 6

The PGH of disease activity was assessed using a 0 to 100 mm horizontal VAS by the participant. The left-hand extreme of the line equaled 0 mm, and was described as no disease activity (symptom-free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right-hand extreme equaled 100 mm, as maximum disease activity (maximum arthritis disease activity). A negative change from baseline indicated improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in PGH of Disease Activity at Month 6-26.5 mmStandard Deviation 28.4
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in PhGH at Month 6

The PhGH was assessed using a 0 to 100 mm horizontal VAS by the physician. The left-hand extreme of the line equaled 0 mm, and was described as no disease activity (symptom-free and no arthritis symptoms) and the right-hand extreme equaled 100 mm, as maximum disease activity (maximum arthritis disease activity). A negative change from baseline indicated improvement.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in PhGH at Month 6-34.0 mmStandard Deviation 28.2
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) Score at Month 6

The SDAI was a combined index for measuring disease activity in RA which reflected the numerical sum of five outcome parameters: TJC and SJC based on a 28-joint assessment, PGH and physician's global assessment (PhGH) of disease activity, assessed on 0-100 mm VAS where 0 = no disease activity and 100 = worst disease activity, and C-reactive protein (CRP) (milligrams per deciliter \[mg/dL\]). SDAI total score = 0-86. A SDAI score of \<=3.3 represented clinical remission, a score of \<=11.0 represents low disease activity, a score of \<=26.0 represented moderate disease activity and a score of \>26.0 represented high (or severe) disease.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) Score at Month 6-18.7 Score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.7
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Swollen Joint Count (SJC) (66 Joints) at Month 6

The number of swollen joints was recorded on the joint assessment form, with no swelling = 0, and swelling =1, for 66 joints, giving a total possible SJC score of 0 to 66.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Swollen Joint Count (SJC) (66 Joints) at Month 6-6.7 Swollen Joint CountStandard Deviation 7.5
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Tender Joint Count (TJC) (68 Joints) at Month 6

The number of tender joints was recorded on the joint assessment form, with no tenderness = 0, and tenderness = 1, for 68 joints, giving a total possible TJC score of 0 to 68.

Time frame: Baseline, 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants with valid data to calculate TJC at the end of study (6 months).

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsChange From Baseline in Tender Joint Count (TJC) (68 Joints) at Month 6-10.7 Tender Joint CountStandard Deviation 10.3
p-value: <0.0001Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test
Secondary

Duration of Previous Biologic RA Treatments

Previous biologic RA treatment included adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and other (any other previous biologic RA treatment).

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and n= participants who were evaluable for each category.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsDuration of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsAdalimumab (n=27)0.9 yearsStandard Deviation 1
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsDuration of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsInfliximab (n=14)2.5 yearsStandard Deviation 2.9
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsDuration of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsGolimumab (n=8)1.6 yearsStandard Deviation 0.8
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsDuration of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsEtanercept (n=31)1.7 yearsStandard Deviation 1.9
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsDuration of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsCertolizumab (n=3)4.9 yearsStandard Deviation 1.9
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsDuration of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsOther (n=13)1.4 yearsStandard Deviation 2.2
Secondary

Mean Dose at 6 Months

TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and n= participants who were evaluable for each category.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dose at 6 MonthsTCZ Administration 1 (Baseline) (n=182)8.0 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Standard Deviation 0
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dose at 6 MonthsTCZ Administration 2 (Week 4) (n=179)7.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Standard Deviation 0.6
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dose at 6 MonthsTCZ Administration 3 (Week 8) (n=174)7.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Standard Deviation 0.6
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dose at 6 MonthsTCZ Administration 4 (Week 12) (n=166)7.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Standard Deviation 0.5
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dose at 6 MonthsTCZ Administration 5 (Week 16) (n=158)7.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Standard Deviation 0.3
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dose at 6 MonthsTCZ Administration 6 (Week 20) (n=151)7.9 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)Standard Deviation 0.5
Secondary

Mean Dosing Interval of Treatment at 6 Months

TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations. The mean dosing interval between different TCZ administrations (Adm) by participants within 6 months observational period was presented.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and n= participants who were evaluable for each category.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dosing Interval of Treatment at 6 MonthsBetween TCZ Adm 1 (Baseline) and 2 (Week 4)(n=178)31.4 daysStandard Deviation 5.7
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dosing Interval of Treatment at 6 MonthsBetween TCZ Adm 2 (Week 4) and 3 (Week 8) (n=174)30.8 daysStandard Deviation 4.5
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dosing Interval of Treatment at 6 MonthsBetween TCZ Adm 3 (Week 8) and 4 (Week 12) (n=166)31.4 daysStandard Deviation 4.7
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dosing Interval of Treatment at 6 MonthsBetween TCZ Adm 4 (Week 12) and 5 (Week 16)(n=158)31.8 daysStandard Deviation 7.2
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Dosing Interval of Treatment at 6 MonthsBetween TCZ Adm 5 (Week 16) and 6 (Week 20)(n=150)31.9 daysStandard Deviation 8.6
Secondary

Mean Number of Dose Modifications at 6 Months

TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsMean Number of Dose Modifications at 6 Months1.7 dose modificationStandard Deviation 0.9
Secondary

Percentage of Participants on TCZ Monotherapy

TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations. Only those participants who had TCZ as monotherapy were reported.

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, n= participants who were evaluable for each category.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ MonotherapyTCZ Administration 1 (Baseline) (n=184)32.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ MonotherapyTCZ Administration 2 (Week 4) (n=178)34.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ MonotherapyTCZ Administration 3 (Week 8) (n=174)35.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ MonotherapyTCZ Administration 6 (Week 20) (n=151)41.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ MonotherapyTCZ Administration 4 (Week 12) (n=166)38.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants on TCZ MonotherapyTCZ Administration 5 (Week 16) (n=158)38.6 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Achieved 20% Improvement in ACR (ACR20) Response at Month 6

ACR response was calculated based on total joint count evaluation (28 or 66/68 joint count) and other clinical and laboratory assessments. A positive ACR20 response required at least a 20% improvement (reduction) compared to baseline in swollen joint count (66 joints) and tender joint count (68 joints) and at least 3 of the following 5 assessments: participant's global assessment of pain, PGH, PhGH (all 3 assessed at 0 \[good\] to 100 mm \[worst\] VAS scale), participant assessment of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (assessed on a 0 to 3 scale, where higher scores represented higher disease activity), Acute phase reactant (CRP or ESR). A reduction in the level of and acute phase reactants was considered an improvement.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Achieved 20% Improvement in ACR (ACR20) Response at Month 654.8 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Achieved 50% Improvement in ACR (ACR50) Response at Month 6

ACR response was calculated based on total joint count evaluation (28 or 66/68 joint count) and other clinical and laboratory assessments. A positive ACR50 response required at least a 50% improvement (reduction) compared to baseline in swollen joint count (66 joints) and tender joint count (68 joints) and at least 3 of the following 5 assessments: (participant's global assessment of pain, PGH, PhGH (all 3 assessed at 0 \[good\] to 100 mm \[worst\] VAS scale), participant assessment of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (assessed on a 0 to 3 scale, where higher scores represented higher disease activity), and acute phase reactant (CRP or ESR). A reduction in the level of acute phase reactants was considered an improvement.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Achieved 50% Improvement in ACR (ACR50) Response at Month 632.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Achieved 70% Improvement in ACR (ACR70) Response at Month 6

ACR response was calculated based on total joint count evaluation (28 or 66/68 joint count) and other clinical and laboratory assessments. A positive ACR70 response required at least a 70% improvement (reduction) compared to baseline in swollen joint count (66 joints) and tender joint count (68 joints) and at least 3 of the following 5 assessments: (participant's global assessment of pain, PGH, PhGH (all 3 assessed at 0 \[good\] to 100 mm \[worst\] VAS scale), participant assessment of disability measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) (assessed on a 0 to 3 scale, where higher scores represented higher disease activity), and acute phase reactant (CRP or ESR). A reduction in the level of acute phase reactants was considered an improvement.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Achieved 70% Improvement in ACR (ACR70) Response at Month 69.7 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Adhered to the Dosing Regimen Recommended by Physician

A participant's adherence was calculated based on the adverse event or laboratory abnormality experienced by the participants who required dose modifications as per local TCZ label or protocol.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Adhered to the Dosing Regimen Recommended by Physician8.2 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Discontinued From TCZ for Safety Versus Efficacy

The safety variable measured the number of participants who discontinued TCZ due to adverse reactions to TCZ, and the efficacy variable measured the participants who discontinued from TCZ due to lack of efficacy according to criteria of the treating physician.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Discontinued From TCZ for Safety Versus EfficacyAdverse event6.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Discontinued From TCZ for Safety Versus EfficacyOther5.4 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Discontinued From TCZ for Safety Versus EfficacyLack of efficacy6.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Received Biological RA Treatment Prior to Start of Study

Biological RA treatment exposure was evaluated for all participants. Prior biological RA treatment included participants who were treated with biological RA treatment 8 weeks before being included in the study. Percentage of participants who did not receive any biological RA treatment and percentage of participants who received one or more biologic RA treatments were reported.

Time frame: Prior to study start (8 weeks)

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received Biological RA Treatment Prior to Start of StudyDid not receive any biologic RA treatment53.8 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received Biological RA Treatment Prior to Start of StudyReceived 1 biologic RA treatment38.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received Biological RA Treatment Prior to Start of StudyReceived 2 biologic RA treatments7.1 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received Biological RA Treatment Prior to Start of StudyReceived 3 or more biologic RA treatments0.5 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the Study

DMARDs exposure was evaluated for all participants. Prior DMARDs treatment included participants, who were treated with DMARDs 8 weeks and according to physician's discretion before being included in the study. DMARDs treatment at baseline included participants who were receiving DMARDs when they were included in the study and continued with this concomitant medication in addition to TCZ. Only those participants who received DMARDs prior to start of study and at Baseline up to 6 months were reported.

Time frame: Prior to study start (8 weeks) and Baseline up to 6 months

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyAzathioprine: Prior to study0.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyGold Compounds: Prior to study2.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyHydroxychloroquine: Prior to study33.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyLeflunomide: Prior to study7.9 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyMethotrexate: Prior to study24.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudySulfasalazine: Prior to study29.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyOther DMARD: Prior to study2.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyAzathioprine: Adm 1 to 61.1 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyGold Compounds: Adm 1 to 63.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyHydroxychloroquine: Adm 1 to 684.8 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyLeflunomide: Adm 1 to 625.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyMethotrexate: Adm 1 to 696.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudyOther DMARD: Adm 1 to 620.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants Who Received DMARDs Prior to Start of Study and Concomitantly With TCZ During the StudySulfasalazine: Adm 1 to 669.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Dose Modifications

TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and n= participants who were evaluable for each category.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Dose ModificationsTCZ Administration 3 (Week 8) (n=174)2.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Dose ModificationsTCZ Administration 1 (Baseline) (n=183)0.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Dose ModificationsTCZ Administration 2 (Week 4) (n=178)2.8 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Dose ModificationsTCZ Administration 4 (Week 12) (n=166)1.8 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Dose ModificationsTCZ Administration 5 (Week 16) (n=158)1.9 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Dose ModificationsTCZ Administration 6 (Week 20) (n=151)3.3 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Month 6

Clinical response assessed as per EULAR categorical DAS28 response criteria was defined as clinically meaningful improvement at a particular time point. EULAR response was based on change from baseline (CFB) in the DAS28 score and also on the actual DAS28 score at the time point so was more reflective of the current status of the participant. The DAS28 score was a measure of the participant's disease activity, based on the TJC (28 joints), SJC (28 joints), PGH (mm), and ESR (mm/hr). DAS28 total scores ranged from 0 to approximately 10. Scores \<2.6 = best disease control and scores \>5.1 = worse disease control. A negative CFB indicated clinically meaningful improvement. EULAR Good response: DAS28 \<=3.2 and a CFB \<-1.2. EULAR Moderate response: DAS28 \>3.2 to ≤ 5.1 or a CFB \< -0.6 to ≥ -1.2. EULAR No response: DAS28 ≤3.2 or CFB \>=-0.6, DAS28 \>3.2 to \<=5.1 or CFB \>=-0.6 and DAS28 \>5.1 or CFB \>=-0.6.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Month 6Good56.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Month 6Moderate28.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Month 6No response15.2 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD Withdrawal

Objective intolerance was determined by medical observation; subjective intolerance was determined by the participant; lack of efficacy was determined by physician discretion.

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalMethotrexate: Lack of efficacy27.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalMethotrexate: Intolerance,Objective22.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalMethotrexate: Intolerance,Subjective17.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalMethotrexate: Other32.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalHydroxychloroquine: Lack of efficacy60.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalHydroxychloroquine: Intolerance,Objective14.8 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalHydroxychloroquine: Intolerance,Subjective12.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalHydroxychloroquine: Other13.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalSulfasalazine: Lack of efficacy60.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalSulfasalazine: Intolerance,Objective11.9 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalSulfasalazine: Intolerance,Subjective9.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalSulfasalazine: Other18.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalLeflunomide: Lack of efficacy63.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalLeflunomide: Intolerance,Objective5.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalLeflunomide: Intolerance,Subjective10.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalLeflunomide: Other21.1 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalGold compounds: Lack of efficacy100 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalAzathioprine: Lack of efficacy66.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalAzathioprine: Intolerance, Subjective33.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalOther: Lack of efficacy44.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalOther: Intolerance,Objective8.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalOther: Intolerance,Subjective16.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reason for DMARD WithdrawalOther: Unspecified32.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose Modification

TCZ was administered every 4 weeks according to the label. Due to the observational nature of the study, the suggested schedule was subject to changes according to physician and participant considerations. Only those participants who had dose modifications were reported.

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 2 (Week 4):Adverse event/safety80.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 2 (Week 4):Other reason20.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 3 (Week 8):Adverse event/safety100.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 4(Week 12):Adverse event/safety66.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 4 (Week 12): Other reason33.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 5(Week 16):Adverse event/safety100.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 6(Week 20):Adverse event/safety40.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Dose ModificationTCZ Administration 6 (Week 20): Other reason60.0 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA Treatments

Lack of efficacy was determined by physician discretion. Previous biologic RA treatment included adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and other (any other previous biologic RA treatment).

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure and n= participants who were evaluable for each category.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsAdalimumab: Lack of efficacy (n=28)85.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsAdalimumab: Adverse event (n=28)10.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsAdalimumab: Other (n=28)3.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsInfliximab: Lack of efficacy (n=15)53.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsInfliximab: Adverse event (n=15)26.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsInfliximab: Other (n=15)20.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsGolimumab: Lack of efficacy (n=8)62.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsGolimumab: Adverse event (n=8)25.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsGolimumab: Other (n=8)12.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsEtanercept: Lack of efficacy (n=31)67.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsEtanercept: Adverse event (n=31)19.4 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsEtanercept: Other (n=31)12.9 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsCertolizumab: Lack of efficacy (n=3)33.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsCertolizumab: Adverse event (n=3)33.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsCertolizumab: Other (n=3)33.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsOther: Lack of efficacy (n=13)53.8 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsOther: Adverse event (n=13)15.4 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Reasons for Termination of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsOther: Unspecified (n=13)30.8 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at Baseline

Systemic manifestations included fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, sjogren's syndrome, anemia, rheumatoid nodules, pulmonary fibrosis, vasculitis, peripheral neuropathy or mononeuropathy, scleritis, episcleritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, low high-density lipoproteins, diabetes type 1 and type 2, metabolic syndrome, carotid artery disease, transient ischemic attacks, embolic stroke, atherothrombotic stroke, atrial fibrillation, heart failure New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class l/ll, coronary heart disease(angina pectoris/myocardial), aortic aneurism, peripheral arterial occlusive disease, percutaneous coronary interventions, coronary artery bypass, carotid endarterectomy and peripheral arterial bypass.

Time frame: Baseline

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineFibromyalgia8.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineOsteoporosis22.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineSjogren's syndrome6.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineAnemia21.8 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineRheumatoid nodules8.1 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselinePulmonary fibrosis3.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineVasculitis0.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselinePeripheral neuropathy or mononeuropathy4.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineScleritis1.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineEpiscleritis0.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineHypertension32.1 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineHyperlipidemia38.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineLow high-density lipoproteins8.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineDiabetes type 1 and type 215.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineMetabolic syndrome10.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineCarotid artery disease1.1 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineTransient ischemic attacks3.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineEmbolic stroke0.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineAtherothrombotic stroke2.7 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineAtrial fibrillation1.1 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineHeart Failure NYHA class l/ll1.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineCoronary heart disease(angina pectoris/myocardial)6.0 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineAortic aneurism0.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselinePeripheral arterial occlusive disease0.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselinePercutaneous coronary interventions4.4 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineCoronary artery bypass1.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselineCarotid Endarterectomy0.5 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Systemic Manifestations of RA at BaselinePeripheral arterial bypass2.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Percentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA Treatments

Previous biologic RA treatment included adalimumab, infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and other (any other previous biologic RA treatment). Same participants may be counted in more than one previous biologic RA treatment category.

Time frame: Up to 6 months

Population: FAS population.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsAdalimumab15.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsInfliximab8.2 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsGolimumab4.3 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsEtanercept17.4 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsCertolizumab1.6 percentage of participants
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsPercentage of Participants With Type of Previous Biologic RA TreatmentsOther7.6 percentage of participants
Secondary

Time to Restoration of Initial Dosing Regimen

Time frame: 6 months

Population: FAS population. Here, number of participants analyzed = participants who were evaluable for this outcome measure.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Rheumatoid Arthritis ParticipantsTime to Restoration of Initial Dosing Regimen81.6 daysStandard Deviation 34.9

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026