A Study of Adalimumab in Japanese Subjects With Intestinal Behçet's Disease

June 27, 2014 updated by: AbbVie (prior sponsor, Abbott)

A Multi-Center Study of Adalimumab in Japanese Subjects With Intestinal Behçet's Disease

To investigate efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of adalimumab subcutaneous (sc) for Japanese subjects with intestinal Behçet's disease who are refractory to conventional therapies.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
20

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Japan
      • Chikushino, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46738
      • Kurume, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46723
      • Nagoya-shi, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46728
      • Nishinomiya-shi, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46725
      • Osaka-shi, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46730
      • Sagamihara-shi, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46722
      • Sakura, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46726
      • Sapporo-shi, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 59578
      • Takatsuki-shi, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46724
      • Tokyo, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46729
      • Tokyo, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46737
      • Yokohama-shi, Japan
        • Site Reference ID/Investigator# 46733

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

15 years and older (Child, Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Intestinal Behçet's disease
  • Patients with typical ulcer at ileocecal region
  • Patients who have failed conventional treatment

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Crohn's disease
  • History of ileocecal resection
  • History of tuberculosis (TB)
  • Female subject who is pregnant or breast-feeding or considering becoming pregnant during the study

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: Adalimumab
Adalimumab 160 mg at Week 0, 80 mg at Week 2 and 40 mg every other week (eow) starting at Week 4 to Week 50, subcutaneous injection. After Week 52, participants could continue the treatment with 40 mg eow until the day before approval of adalimumab for intestinal Behçet's disease in Japan.
Biological: Adalimumab
Other Names:
  • ABT-D2E7, Humira

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Participants With Marked Improvement at Week 24
Time Frame: 24 weeks
Marked improvement is defined as the combination of both global assessment of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and endoscopic improvement grades of ≤1. Global assessment of GI symptoms is a participant-assessed, investigator-confirmed grading of global symptoms from 0 to 4: 0=free of symptoms; 1=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks but did not affect participant's daily life; 2=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and slightly affected participant's daily life; 3=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and affected participant's daily life; 4=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and critically affected participant's daily life. Endoscopic improvement was assessed in 4 grades compared to the screening endoscopy based on the longest diameter (none, ≥1 cm to <2 cm, ≥2 cm to <3 cm, ≥3 cm) of ileocecal largest open ulcer (area of mucosal defect). Grades are: 0=healing; 1=marked reduction (reduction to ≤1/4); 2=reduction (reduction to ≤1/2 - 1/4); 3=no change or worse (reduction less than 1/2 or expansion).
24 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Participants With Marked Improvement at Week 52
Time Frame: 52 weeks
Marked improvement is defined as the combination of both global assessment of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and endoscopic improvement grades of ≤1. Global assessment of GI symptoms is a participant-assessed, investigator-confirmed grading of global symptoms from 0 to 4: 0=free of symptoms; 1=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks but did not affect participant's daily life; 2=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and slightly affected participant's daily life; 3=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and affected participant's daily life; 4=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and critically affected participant's daily life. Endoscopic improvement was assessed in 4 grades compared to the screening endoscopy based on the longest diameter (none, ≥1 cm to <2 cm, ≥2 cm to <3 cm, ≥3 cm) of ileocecal largest open ulcer (area of mucosal defect). Grades are: 0=healing; 1=marked reduction (reduction to ≤1/4); 2=reduction (reduction to ≤1/2 - 1/4); 3=no change or worse (reduction less than 1/2 or expansion).
52 weeks
Number of Participants With Complete Remission at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Complete remission was defined as both endoscopic improvement and global assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms grades of 0. Endoscopic improvement was assessed in 4 grades compared to the screening (baseline) endoscopy based on the longest diameter (none, ≥1 cm to <2 cm, ≥2 cm to <3 cm, ≥3 cm) of ileocecal largest open ulcer (area of mucosal defect). Grades are: 0=healing; 1=marked reduction (reduction to ≤1/4); 2=reduction (reduction to ≤1/2 - 1/4); 3=no change or worse (reduction less than 1/2 or expansion). Global assessment of gastrointestinal symptoms is a participant-assessed, investigator-confirmed grading of global symptoms from 0 to 4: 0=free of symptoms; 1=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks but did not affect participant's daily life; 2=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and slightly affected participant's daily life; 3=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and affected participant's daily life; 4=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and critically affected participant's daily life.
24 weeks, 52 weeks
Number of Participants With a Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptoms Grade 0 or ≤1 and Improvement of ≥1 Grade at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Study participants completed a global assessment of their gastrointestinal symptoms (Behçet's disease symptoms other than gastrointestinal symptoms were excluded) during 2 weeks before assessment visit on a 5-grade scale. The investigator confirmed this assessment via interview with participants. Assessment is graded from 0 to 4: 0=free of symptoms; 1=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks but did not affect participant's daily life; 2=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and slightly affected participant's daily life; 3=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and affected participant's daily life; 4=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and critically affected participant's daily life. Global assessment of grade 0 or ≤1 and improvement of ≥1 (from baseline) is presented.
24 weeks, 52 weeks
Number of Participants With Endoscopic Improvement Grades 0, ≤1 and ≤2 at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Endoscopic improvement was assessed in 4 grades compared to the screening (baseline) endoscopy based on the longest diameter (none, ≥1 cm to <2 cm, ≥2 cm to <3 cm, ≥3 cm) of ileocecal largest open ulcer (area of mucosal defect). Grades are: 0=healing; 1=marked reduction (reduction to ≤1/4); 2=reduction (reduction to ≤1/2 - 1/4); 3=no change or worse (reduction less than 1/2 or expansion).
24 weeks, 52 weeks
Number of Participants With Abdominal Pain, Diarrhea and Other Gastrointestinal (GI) Symptoms Grade ≤1 and Improvement of ≥1 Grade at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Participants assessed their abdominal pain, diarrhea and other gastrointestinal symptoms (abdominal discomfort, abdominal fullness, etc) during 2 weeks before assessment visit in 5 grades. Investigator confirmed the assessment through interview with participants. Assessment is graded from 0 to 4: 0=free of symptoms; 1=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks but did not affect participant's daily life; 2=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and slightly affected participant's daily life; 3=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and affected participant's daily life; 4=symptoms existed in past 2 weeks and critically affected participant's daily life. Improvement of ≥1 grade from baseline is also presented.
24 weeks, 52 weeks
Number of Participants With Resolution of Behçet's Disease Symptoms (Other Than Gastrointestinal Symptoms) at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Investigators assessed oral aphthous (mouth ulcers), skin symptoms, eye symptoms and vulval (genital) ulcers during 4 weeks before study visit via participant interview, using the following grades. Oral aphthous: 0=None; 1=Symptom existed less than 2 weeks in recent 4 weeks; 2=Symptom existed 2 weeks or more in recent 4 weeks; 3=Symptom existed mostly in recent 4 weeks. Skin (Erythema nodosum rash): 0=None; 1=Symptom existed less than 2 weeks in recent 4 weeks; 2=Symptom existed 2 weeks or more in recent 4 weeks; 3=Symptom existed mostly in recent 4 weeks. Eye (Uveitis): 0=None; 1=one eye crisis in recent 4 weeks; 2=two eye crises in recent 4 weeks; 3=three eye crises in recent 4 weeks. Vulval (genital) ulcer: 0=None; 1=Symptom existed less than 2 weeks in recent 4 weeks; 2=Symptom existed 2 weeks or more in recent 4 weeks; 3=Symptom existed mostly in recent 4 weeks. Resolution was defined as: Behçet's disease symptoms other than gastrointestinal symptoms were graded 0 (disappeared).
24 weeks, 52 weeks
Mean Change From Baseline in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) is the standard questionnaire to assess the quality of life of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The IBDQ is a 32-item questionnaire consisting of 4 dimensions: bowel-related symptoms, systemic function, social function and emotional status. The responses to each question within each domain range from 1 (significant impairment) to 7 (no impairment), with total score ranging from 32 (very poor) to 224 (perfect health-related quality of life).
Baseline, 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Mean Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Summary Scores at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, 24 weeks, 52 weeks
The Short-Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey is a comprehensive quality of life scale. An increase in SF-36 score indicates alleviation of the disease and a decrease in score indicates aggravation of disease. The physical component reflects activity level, activity limitations, pain and rating of one's health. Score on the physical component ranges from 0 (poorest health) to 100 (best health). The mental component reflects vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health. Score on the mental component ranges from 0 (poorest health) to 100 (best health).
Baseline, 24 weeks, 52 weeks
Median Change From Baseline in C-Reactive Protein (CRP) at Week 24 and Week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, 24 weeks, 52 weeks
C-Reactive Protein (CRP) normal range was defined as ≤0.3 mg/dL.
Baseline, 24 weeks, 52 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
AbbVie (prior sponsor, Abbott)

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Eisai Co., Ltd.

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Study Director: Morio Ozawa, MS, AbbVie GK.

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Helpful Links

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
October 1, 2010

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
March 1, 2012

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
June 1, 2013

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
November 17, 2010

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
November 17, 2010

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
November 18, 2010

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
July 25, 2014

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 27, 2014

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
June 1, 2014

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • M11-509

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings