A Phase 2 Study For Patients With A Physician's Diagnosis Of Rheumatoid Arthritis

A Phase 2b, Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled Active Comparator, Multicenter Study To Compare 5 Dose Regimens Of CP- 690,550 And Adalimumab Versus Placebo, Administered For 6 Months In The Treatment Of Subjects With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis

The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness and safety, over 6 months, of 5 doses of CP-690,550 for the treatment of adults with active rheumatoid arthritis. Five out of seven subjects will receive CP-690,550. One out of seven will receive adalimumab (Humira®) and one out of seven will only receive inactive substances (placebo.)

Study Overview

• Status: Completed
• Conditions: Arthritis, Rheumatoid
• Intervention / Treatment: Drug: Adalimumab; Drug: CP-690-550; Drug: CP-690-550; Drug: CP-690-550; Drug: CP-690,550; Drug: CP-690,550; Drug: Placebo

• Study Type: Interventional
• Enrollment (Actual): 386
• Phase: Phase 2

Contacts and Locations

Study Locations

• Brazil
  • RS
    • Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, 90035-903
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • SP
    • Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil, 01323-903
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Bulgaria
  • Pleven, Bulgaria, 5800
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Sofia, Bulgaria, 1709
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Sofia, Bulgaria, 1612
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Sofia 1606, Bulgaria
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Chile
  • RM
    • Santiago, RM, Chile, 8360156
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Santiago, RM, Chile, 8331030
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Santiago, RM
    • Providencia, Santiago, RM, Chile, 7530206
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Croatia
  • Split, Croatia, 21000
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Zagreb, Croatia, 10000
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Czech Republic
  • Brno, Czech Republic, 656 91
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Praha 11 - Chodov, Czech Republic, 148 00
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Praha 2, Czech Republic, 128 50
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Praha 4, Czech Republic, 140 59
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Zlin, Czech Republic, 760 01
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Germany
  • Dresden, Germany, 01067
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Hamburg, Germany, 22081
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Hildesheim, Germany, 31134
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Leipzig, Germany, 04103
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Greece
  • Thessaloniki, Greece, 54 636
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Athens
    • Goudi, Athens, Greece, 11527
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Hungary
  • Szolnok, Hungary, H-5000
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Italy
  • Firenze, Italy, 50139
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Genova, Italy, 16132
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Korea, Republic of
  • Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 110-744
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Seoul, Korea, Republic of, 133-792
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Mexico
  • D.f.
    • Mexico, D.f., Mexico, 06100
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Estado de Mexico
    • Metepec, Estado de Mexico, Mexico, 52140
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Jalisco
    • Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, 44650
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Morelos
    • Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico, 62270
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Romania
  • Bucuresti, Romania, 011172
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Constanta, Romania, 900591
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Iasi, Romania, 700661
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Slovakia
  • Piestany, Slovakia, 921 12
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Zilina, Slovakia, 012 07
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• Ukraine
  • Kharkiv, Ukraine, 61000
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Kyiv, Ukraine, 04114
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Lviv, Ukraine, 79011
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Vinnitsa, Ukraine, 21018
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine, 69118
    • Pfizer Investigational Site
• United States
  • Arizona
    • Mesa, Arizona, United States, 85208
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Arkansas
    • Little Rock, Arkansas, United States, 72205
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • California
    • Northridge, California, United States, 91325
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Palo Alto, California, United States, 94304
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Stanford, California, United States, 94305
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Tarzana, California, United States, 91356
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Upland, California, United States, 91786
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Florida
    • Orlando, Florida, United States, 32804
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Tampa, Florida, United States, 33614
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Illinois
    • Morton Grove, Illinois, United States, 60053
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Rockford, Illinois, United States, 61107
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Iowa
    • Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United States, 52401-2112
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Kansas
    • Wichita, Kansas, United States, 67203
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Wichita, Kansas, United States, 67208
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Louisiana
    • New Orleans, Louisiana, United States, 70115
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • North Carolina
    • Hickory, North Carolina, United States, 28601
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Hickory, North Carolina, United States, 28602
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Ohio
    • Dayton, Ohio, United States, 45408
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Pennsylvania
    • Duncansville, Pennsylvania, United States, 16635
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Tennessee
    • Knoxville, Tennessee, United States, 37909-1600
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
  • Texas
    • Dallas, Texas, United States, 75235
      • Pfizer Investigational Site
    • Mesquite, Texas, United States, 75150
      • Pfizer Investigational Site

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: No
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

• Subjects must have active rheumatoid arthritis
• Subjects must have failed at least 1 disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)
• Subjects must not be currently taking any DMARD other than an antimalarial

Exclusion Criteria:

• Subjects who discontinued any previous TNF inhibitor therapy for either lack of benefit or safety.
• Subjects who previously received adalimumab (Humira®) therapy for any reason.
• Subjects with evidence of blood disorders, chronic infections or untreated tuberculosis

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Treatment
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Quadruple

Number of Arms

7

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: 2	Drug: CP-690-550; 15 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690-550; 10 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690-550; 5 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10)
Experimental: 3	Drug: CP-690-550; 15 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690-550; 10 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690-550; 5 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10)
Experimental: 4	Drug: CP-690-550; 15 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690-550; 10 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690-550; 5 mg BID oral plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10)
Active Comparator: 1	Drug: Adalimumab; 40mg subcutaneous injections every other week for 6 injections during week 0-10 with oral placebo BID. Subjects switched to CP-690,550 at week 12.
Experimental: 5	Drug: CP-690,550; 3 mg BID PO plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690,550; 1 mg BID PO plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10)
Experimental: 6	Drug: CP-690,550; 3 mg BID PO plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10); Drug: CP-690,550; 1 mg BID PO plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10)
Placebo Comparator: 7	Drug: Placebo; Placebo by mouth plus 6 placebo subcutaneous injections (week 0-10)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) Response at Week 12	ACR20 response: greater than or equal to (>=) 20 % improvement in tender joint count (TJC); >= 20% improvement in swollen joint count (SJC); and >= 20% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: participant assessment of pain; participant global assessment of disease activity; physician global assessment of disease activity; self-assessed disability (disability index of the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]); and C-Reactive Protein (CRP).	Week 12

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) Response	ACR20 response: 20% improvement in TJC; >=20% improvement in SJC; and >=20% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: participant assessment of pain; participant global assessment of disease activity; physician global assessment of disease activity; self-assessed disability (disability index of the HAQ); and CRP.	Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 20 and 24/Early Termination (ET)
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 50%(ACR50) Response	ACR50 response: >= 50% improvement in TJC or SJC and 50% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: participant assessment of pain; participant global assessment of disease activity; physician global assessment of disease activity; self-assessed disability (disability index of the HAQ); and CRP.	Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 70% (ACR70) Response	ACR70 response: >= 70% improvement in TJC or SJC and 70% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: participant assessment of pain; participant global assessment of disease activity; physician global assessment of disease activity; self-assessed disability (disability index of the HAQ); and CRP.	Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Percentage of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 90% (ACR90) Response	ACR90 response: >= 90% improvement in TJC or SJC and 90% improvement in at least 3 of 5 remaining ACR core measures: participant assessment of pain; participant global assessment of disease activity; physician global assessment of disease activity; self-assessed disability (disability index of the HAQ); and CRP.	Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Area Under the Numeric Index of American College of Rheumatology Response (ACR-n) Curve	ACR-n = calculated for each participant by taking the lowest percentage improvement in (1) SJC or (2) TJC or (3) the median of the remaining 5 components of the ACR response (participant's assessment of disease activity; participant's global assessment of pain; physician's assessment of disease activity; participant's assessment of physical function; an acute phase reactant value - CRP). Negative numbers indicate worsening. Area under the curve (AUC) for ACR-n is the measure of the area under the curve of the mean change from baseline in ACR-n. The trapezoidal rule was used to compute the AUC.	Baseline up to Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12
Tender Joint Count (TJC)	Number of tender joints was determined by examining 68 joints and identified the joints that were painful under pressure or to passive motion. The number of tender joints was recorded on the joint assessment form at each visit, no tenderness = 0, tenderness = 1.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Change From Baseline in Tender Joint Count at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24 or ET	Number of tender joints was determined by examining 68 joints and identified the joints that were painful under pressure or to passive motion. The number of tender joints was recorded on the joint assessment form at each visit, no tenderness = 0, tenderness = 1. A negative value in change from baseline indicated an improvement.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Swollen Joint Counts (SJC)	Number of swollen joints was determined by examination of 66 joints and identifying when swelling was present. The number of swollen joints was recorded on the joint assessment form at each visit, no swelling = 0, swelling =1.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Change From Baseline in Swollen Joint Count at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24	Number of swollen joints was determined by examination of 66 joints and identifying when swelling was present. The number of swollen joints was recorded on the joint assessment form at each visit, no swelling = 0, swelling = 1. A negative value in change from baseline indicated an improvement.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain	Participants rated the severity of arthritis pain on a 0 to 100 millimeter (mm) Visual Analog Scale (VAS), where 0 mm = no pain and 100 mm = most severe pain.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Change From Baseline in Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET	Participants rated the severity of arthritis pain on a 0 to 100 millimeter (mm) Visual Analog Scale (VAS), where 0 mm = no pain and 100 mm = most severe pain.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET
Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) of Arthritis Pain	Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your arthritis affects you, how are you feeling today?" Participants responded by using a 0 - 100 mm VAS, where 0 mm = very well and 100 mm = very poorly.	Baseline, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment (PtGA) of Arthritis at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET	Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your arthritis affects you, how are you feeling today?" Participants responded by using a 0 - 100 mm VAS, where 0 mm = very well and 100 mm = very poorly.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Physician Global Assessment (PGA) of Arthritis	Physician global assessment of arthritis was measured on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, where 0 mm = very good and 100 mm = very bad.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Change From Baseline in Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) of Arthritis Pain at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET	Physician global assessment of arthritis was measured on a 0 to 100 mm VAS, where 0 mm = very good and 100 mm = very bad.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
C-Reactive Protein (CRP)	The test for CRP is a laboratory measurement for evaluation of an acute phase reactant of inflammation through the use of an ultrasensitive assay. Normal range of CRP is 0 milligram per liter (mg/L) to 10 mg/L. A decrease in the level of CRP indicates reduction in inflammation and therefore improvement.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Change From Baseline in C-reactive Protein (CRP) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET	The test for CRP is a laboratory measurement for evaluation of an acute phase reactant of inflammation through the use of an ultrasensitive assay. Normal range of CRP is 0 mg/L to 10 mg/L. A decrease in the level of CRP indicates reduction in inflammation and therefore improvement.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI)	HAQ-DI: participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Change From Baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET	HAQ-DI: participant-reported assessment of ability to perform tasks in 8 categories of daily living activities: dress/groom; arise; eat; walk; reach; grip; hygiene; and common activities over past week. Each item scored on 4-point scale from 0 to 3: 0=no difficulty; 1=some difficulty; 2=much difficulty; 3=unable to do. Overall score was computed as the sum of domain scores and divided by the number of domains answered. Total possible score range 0-3 where 0 = least difficulty and 3 = extreme difficulty.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joints Count and C-Reactive Protein (3 Variables) (DAS28-3 [CRP])	DAS28-3 (CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using the 28 joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to 9.4, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-3 (CRP) less than or equal to (<=) 3.2 implied low disease activity and greater than (>) 3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate to high disease activity, and less than (<) 2.6 = remission.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joints Count and C-Reactive Protein (3 Variables) (DAS28-3 [CRP]) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET	DAS28-3 (CRP) was calculated from the SJC and TJC using the 28 joints count and CRP (mg/L). Total score range: 0 to 9.4, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-3 (CRP) <= 3.2 implied low disease activity and > 3.2 to 5.1 implied moderate to high disease activity, and < 2.6 = remission.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ ET
Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joints Count and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (4 Variables) (DAS28-4 [ESR])	DAS28-4 (ESR) calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joint count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (millimeters per hour [mm/hour]) and PtGA of disease activity (transformed score ranging 0 to 10; higher score indicated greater affectation due to disease activity). Total score range: 0 to 9.4, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-4 (ESR) <= 3.2 implies low disease activity and > 3.2 to 5.1 implies moderate to high disease activity, and < 2.6 = remission.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joints Count and Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (4 Variables) (DAS28-4 [ESR]) at Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24/ET	DAS28-4 (ESR) calculated from SJC and TJC using 28 joint count, ESR [mm/hour] and PtGA of disease activity (transformed score ranging 0 to 10; higher score indicated greater affectation due to disease activity). Total score range: 0 to 9.4, higher score indicated more disease activity. DAS28-4 (ESR) <= 3.2 implies low disease activity and > 3.2 to 5.1 implies moderate to high disease activity, and < 2.6 = remission.	Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Percentage of Participants With Disease Improvement Based on DAS28-4 (ESR)	Disease improvement was classified as good, moderate, and none based on improvement in DAS28-4 (ESR) from baseline and present DAS28-4 (ESR) score. Good: an improvement from baseline of >1.2 and a present score of <=3.2; none: an improvement of <=0.6 or >0.6 to <=1.2 with a present score of >5.1; remaining participants were classified as having moderate (Mod) improvement. Scores of good and moderate were considered to have therapeutic response.	Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ET
Percentage of Participants With Disease Remission Based on Normal C-reactive Protein (CRP)	CRP value less than or equal to upper limit of normal (ULN) implied disease remission (ULN=4.9 mg/L).	Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ ET
Percentage of Participants With Disease Remission Based on DAS28-3 (CRP)	DAS28-3 (CRP) defined remission was classified as a score of <2.6.	Week 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24/ ET
36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36)	SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 domains (of 2 components [C]; physical [Ph] and mental [Mn]) of functional health and well being: physical and social (So) functioning (Fn), physical and emotional role (role-physical [R-P], role-emotional [R-E]) limitations, bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (Vit), mental health (MnH). The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).	Baseline, Week 12, 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) at Week 12 and 24/ET	SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 domains (of 2 components [C]; physical [Ph] and mental [Mn]) of functional health and well being: physical and social (So) functioning (Fn), physical and emotional role (role-physical [R-P], role-emotional [R-E]) limitations, bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (Vit), mental health (MnH). The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).	Baseline, Week 12, 24/ ET
Euro Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D)-Health State Profile Utility Score	EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single utility score. Health State Profile component assesses level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression; 1 indicates better health state (no problems); 3 indicates worst health state (confined to bed). Scoring formula developed by EuroQoL Group assigns a utility value for each domain in the profile. Score is transformed and results in a total score range -0.594 to 1.000; higher score indicates a better health state.	Baseline, Week 12, 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life 5 Dimension (EQ-5D)- Health State Profile Utility Score at Week 12 and 24/ET	EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single utility score. Health State Profile component assesses level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression; 1 indicates better health state (no problems); 3 indicates worst health state ("confined to bed"). Scoring formula developed by EuroQol Group assigns a utility value for each domain in the profile. Score is transformed and results in a total score range -0.594 to 1.000; higher score indicates a better health state.	Baseline, Week 12, 24/ ET

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Serum Immunoglobulin G (IgG), Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin A (IgA) Levels	Blood samples for immunoglobulin assessments were obtained to determine IgG, IgM, and IgA levels in serum.	Baseline, Week 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in Serum Immunoglobulin G (IgG), Immunoglobulin M (IgM) and Immunoglobulin A (IgA) Levels at Week 24	Blood samples for immunoglobulin assessments were obtained to determine change from baseline in serum IgG, IgM, and IgA levels.	Baseline, Week 24/ ET
Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting (FACS) Lymphocyte Biomarkers	The following biomarkers were assessed: Cluster of Differentiation 3 (CD3), CD4, CD8, CD19 and CD56. FACS analysis for lymphocyte subset markers were used to assess the effects of repeated doses of CP-690,550.	Baseline, Week 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting (FACS) Lymphocyte Biomarkers at Week 24	The following biomarkers were assessed: CD3, CD4, CD8, CD19 and CD56. FACS analysis for lymphocyte subset markers were used to assess the effects of repeated doses of CP-690,550.	Baseline, Week 24/ ET
Medical Outcome Study- Sleep Scale (MOS-SS)	Participant-rated questionnaire to assess key constructs of sleep over the past week. Consists of a 12-item based on 7 sub scales: sleep disturbance (SD), snoring (Sno), awakened short of breath (ASOB) or with headache, sleep adequacy (Ade), and somnolence (Som) (range:0-100); sleep quantity (Qua)(range:0-24), and optimal (Opt) sleep (yes: 1, no: 0)and nine item index measures of sleep disturbance were constructed to provide composite scores: sleep problem summary (SPS) and overall sleep problems (OSP). Except sleep adequacy, optimal sleep and quantity, higher scores=greater impairment. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range* 100); total score range: 0 to 100; higher score = greater intensity of attribute.	Baseline, Week 2, 12, 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in Medical Outcome Study- Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) at Week 2, 12 and 24/ET	Participant-rated questionnaire to assess key constructs of sleep over the past week. Consists of a 12-item based on 7 subscales: sleep disturbance (SD), snoring (Sno), awakened short of breath (A SOB) or with headache, sleep adequacy (Ade), and somnolence (Som) (range: 0-100); sleep quantity (Qua) (range: 0-24), and optimal (Opt) sleep (yes: 1, no: 0) and 9 item index measures of sleep disturbance were constructed to provide 2 composite scores: sleep problem summary (SPS) and overall sleep problems (OSP). Except sleep adequacy, optimal sleep and quantity, higher scores=greater impairment. Scores are transformed (actual raw score minus lowest possible score divided by possible raw score range*100); total score range: 0 to 100; higher score = greater intensity of attribute.	Baseline, Week 2, 12, 24/ ET
Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale	FACIT-Fatigue is a 13-item questionnaire. Participant scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as 4 minus the participant's response. The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score). A higher score reflected an improvement in the participant's health status.	Baseline, Week 2, 12, 24/ ET
Change From Baseline in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue Scale at Week 2, 12 and 24/ET	FACIT-Fatigue is a 13-item questionnaire. Participant scored each item on a 5-point scale: 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much). The larger the participant's response to the questions (with the exception of 2 negatively stated), the greater the fatigue. For all questions, except for the 2 negatively stated ones, the code was reversed and a new score was calculated as 4 minus the participant's response. The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score). A higher score reflected an improvement in the participant's health status.	Baseline, Week 2, 12, 24/ ET

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Pfizer

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Panaccione R, Isaacs JD, Chen LA, Wang W, Marren A, Kwok K, Wang L, Chan G, Su C. Characterization of Creatine Kinase Levels in Tofacitinib-Treated Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Results from Clinical Trials. Dig Dis Sci. 2021 Aug;66(8):2732-2743. doi: 10.1007/s10620-020-06560-4. Epub 2020 Aug 20. Erratum In: Dig Dis Sci. 2020 Oct 10;:
• Winthrop KL, Curtis JR, Yamaoka K, Lee EB, Hirose T, Rivas JL, Kwok K, Burmester GR. Clinical Management of Herpes Zoster in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis or Psoriatic Arthritis Receiving Tofacitinib Treatment. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 Feb;9(1):243-263. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00390-0. Epub 2021 Dec 6.
• Cohen SB, Tanaka Y, Mariette X, Curtis JR, Lee EB, Nash P, Winthrop KL, Charles-Schoeman C, Thirunavukkarasu K, DeMasi R, Geier J, Kwok K, Wang L, Riese R, Wollenhaupt J. Long-term safety of tofacitinib for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis up to 8.5 years: integrated analysis of data from the global clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jul;76(7):1253-1262. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210457. Epub 2017 Jan 31.
• Cohen S, Radominski SC, Gomez-Reino JJ, Wang L, Krishnaswami S, Wood SP, Soma K, Nduaka CI, Kwok K, Valdez H, Benda B, Riese R. Analysis of infections and all-cause mortality in phase II, phase III, and long-term extension studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2014 Nov;66(11):2924-37. doi: 10.1002/art.38779.
• Suzuki M, Shoji S, Miyoshi S, Krishnaswami S. Model-Based Comparison of Dose-Response Profiles of Tofacitinib in Japanese Versus Western Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients. J Clin Pharmacol. 2020 Feb;60(2):198-208. doi: 10.1002/jcph.1514. Epub 2019 Sep 12.
• Charles-Schoeman C, Burmester G, Nash P, Zerbini CA, Soma K, Kwok K, Hendrikx T, Bananis E, Fleischmann R. Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib following inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Jul;75(7):1293-301. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-207178. Epub 2015 Aug 14. Erratum In: Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Mar;76(3):611.
• Cohen SB, Tanaka Y, Mariette X, Curtis JR, Lee EB, Nash P, Winthrop KL, Charles-Schoeman C, Wang L, Chen C, Kwok K, Biswas P, Shapiro A, Madsen A, Wollenhaupt J. Long-term safety of tofacitinib up to 9.5 years: a comprehensive integrated analysis of the rheumatoid arthritis clinical development programme. RMD Open. 2020 Oct;6(3):e001395. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001395.
• Mariette X, Chen C, Biswas P, Kwok K, Boy MG. Lymphoma in the Tofacitinib Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Development Program. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 May;70(5):685-694. doi: 10.1002/acr.23421. Epub 2018 Apr 2.
• Wallenstein GV, Kanik KS, Wilkinson B, Cohen S, Cutolo M, Fleischmann RM, Genovese MC, Gomez Reino J, Gruben D, Kremer J, Krishnaswami S, Lee EB, Pascual-Ramos V, Strand V, Zwillich SH. Effects of the oral Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: results of two Phase 2 randomised controlled trials. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016 May-Jun;34(3):430-42. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
• Fleischmann R, Cutolo M, Genovese MC, Lee EB, Kanik KS, Sadis S, Connell CA, Gruben D, Krishnaswami S, Wallenstein G, Wilkinson BE, Zwillich SH. Phase IIb dose-ranging study of the oral JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (CP-690,550) or adalimumab monotherapy versus placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Mar;64(3):617-29. doi: 10.1002/art.33383.

Helpful Links

• To obtain contact information for a study center near you, click here.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start: September 1, 2007
• Primary Completion (Actual): January 1, 2009
• Study Completion (Actual): January 1, 2009

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: October 25, 2007
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: October 25, 2007
• First Posted (Estimate): October 29, 2007

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimate): January 3, 2013
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: November 29, 2012
• Last Verified: November 1, 2012

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: Janus Kinase 3 Clinical Trial
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Immune System Diseases; Autoimmune Diseases; Joint Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Rheumatic Diseases; Connective Tissue Diseases; Arthritis; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action; Enzyme Inhibitors; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antirheumatic Agents; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Adalimumab; Tofacitinib
• Other Study ID Numbers: A3921035