AzTrials
AzTrials

Arthritis, RheumatoidPhase 2NCT00687193

Comparison Of 5 CP-690,550 Doses Vs. Placebo, For The Treatment Of Rheumatoid Arthritis In Japan

A Phase 2 study testing CP-690,550 in people with Arthritis, Rheumatoid, run by Pfizer at 40 sites in Japan.

Completed

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

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

To evaluate the dose-response relationship of 5 dose of CP-690,550, compared to placebo for the treatment of signs and symptoms in patients with active RA who failed an adequate trial of therapy with at least 1 DMARD in a 12-week therapy. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 20 to 70 years
Conditions the study is for
Arthritis, Rheumatoid
What is being tested?
CP-690,550
Type of treatment
Pill or oral medicine
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
318 participants
Where
40 sitesJapan
Study dates
Mar 2009to Jul 2010
Phase
Phase 2
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

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

  • Ages 20 to 70 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Subjects must have failed an adequate trial of therapy with at least 1 DMARD due to lack of efficacy or toxicity.

Who cannot join

  • Current therapy with any DMARD

Trial locations and contacts

40 sites in 1 country.

40 sites in 1 country

Japan40 sites
  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Arakawa-ku, Tokyo

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Asahikawa, Hokkaido

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Chiba, Chiba

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Fukuoka, Fukuoka

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Fukushima, Fukushima

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Higashihiroshima, Hiroshima

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Hiroshima, Hiroshima

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Iiduka, Fukuoka

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kashihara, Nara

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kawachi-Nagano, Osaka

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kawagoe-shi, Saitama

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kitakyushu, Fukuoka

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kitamoto, Saitama

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Koushi, Kumamoto

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kumamoto, Kumamoto

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kurume, Fukuoka

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Kyoto, Kyoto

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Musashimurayama-shi, Tokyo

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Nagasaki, Nagasaki

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Nagoya, Aichi-ken

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Narashino, Chiba

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Nishinomiya, Hyōgo

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Ohmura, Nagasaki

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Ōita, Oita Prefecture

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Osaka, Osaka

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Sagamihara, Kanagawa

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Saitama, Saitama

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Sapporo, Hokkaido

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Sasebo, Nagasaki

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Sawara-ku, Fukuoka

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Sendai, Miyagi

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Setagaya-ku, Tokyo

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Shinjyuku-ku, Tokyo

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Takaoka, Toyama

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Takasaki, Gunma

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Tsu, Mie-ken

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Tsukuba, Ibaraki

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Ureshino-shi, Saga-ken

  • Pfizer Investigational Site

    Yotukaidou, Chiba

Other trials in Japan

About this study

Official title: A Phase 2, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study To Confirm Dose Responsiveness Following 12 Weeks Of The Administration Of CP-690,550 (5 Doses) Or Placebo In Subjects With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Inadequately Responding To At Least 1 DMARD

To evaluate the dose-response relationship of 5 dose of CP-690,550, compared to placebo for the treatment of signs and symptoms in patients with active RA who failed an adequate trial of therapy with at least 1 DMARD in a 12-week therapy.

Being tested
Placebo, CP-690,550
Keywords
Phase 2 monotherapy in Japan
Medical subject headings
Arthritis, Rheumatoid

What participants receive

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

  • PlaceboDrug

    Placebo BID, 3 blinded tablets administered BID for 12 weeks

  • CP-690,550Drug

    10mg BID, 3 blinded tablets administered BID for 12 weeks

  • CP-690,550Drug

    15mg BID, 3 blinded tablets administered BID for 12 weeks

  • CP-690,550Drug

    1mg BID, 3 blinded tablets administered BID for 12 weeks

  • CP-690,550Drug

    3mg BID, 3 blinded tablets administered BID for 12 weeks

  • CP-690,550Drug

    5mg BID, 3 blinded tablets administered BID for 12 weeks

Study groups in NCT00687193
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
PlaceboPlacebo comparatorNot described
Receives: Drug: Placebo
CP-690,550, 10mgExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: CP-690,550
CP-690,550, 15mgExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: CP-690,550
CP-690,550, 1mgExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: CP-690,550
CP-690,550, 3mgExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: CP-690,550
CP-690,550, 5mgExperimentalNot described
Receives: Drug: CP-690,550

What is being measured

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

  1. Number of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) Response at Week 12

    ACR20 response: greater than or equal to (>=) 20 percent (%) improvement in painful and tender joint count; >= 20% improvement in swollen joint count; 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).

    Measured: Week 12

Secondary outcomes (25)
  1. Number of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) Response at Weeks 2, 4 and 8

    ACR20 response: greater than or equal to (>=) 20 percent (%) improvement in painful and tender joint count; >= 20% improvement in swollen joint count; 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)at each visit.

    Measured: Week 2, 4, and 8

  2. Number of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 50% (ACR50) Response

    ACR50 response: greater than or equal to (>=) 50 percent (%) improvement in painful and tender joint count; >= 50% improvement in swollen joint count; 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 Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]); and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) at each visit.

    Measured: Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  3. Number of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 70% (ACR70) Response

    ACR70 response: greater than or equal to (>=) 70 percent (%) improvement in painful and tender joint count; >= 70% improvement in swollen joint count; 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 Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]); and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) at each visit.

    Measured: Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  4. Number of Participants Achieving American College of Rheumatology 90% (ACR90) Response

    ACR90 response: greater than or equal to (>=) 90 percent (%) improvement in painful and tender joint count; >= 90% improvement in swollen joint count; 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 Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]); and C-Reactive Protein (CRP) at each visit.

    Measured: Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  5. Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joints Count Using C-reactive Protein [DAS28-3(CRP)]

    The DAS28-3 (CRP) score is a measure of the perticipant's disease activity. It is based on the painful and tender joint count (28 joints), swollen joint count (28 joints) and CRP. DAS28-3 (CRP) scores range from 0 - 10; higher scores indicated greater affectation due to disease activity.

    Change = value at observation minus value at baseline

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  6. Change From Baseline in Disease Activity Score Based on 28-Joints Count Using Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate [DAS28-4(ESR)]

    The DAS28-4 (ESR) score is a measure of the participant's disease activity. It is based on the painful and tender joint count (28 joints), swollen joint count (28 joints), participant's global assessment of disease activity (mm), and ESR. DAS28-4(ESR) scores range from 0 - 10; higher scores indicated greater affectation due to disease activity.

    Change = score at observation minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  7. Change From Baseline in 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.

    Change = score at observation minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  8. Change From Baseline in Painful and Tender Joint Counts

    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 indicates an improvement. Change = value at observation minus value at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 12

  9. Change From Baseline in Swollen Joint Count (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. A negative value in change from baseline indicates an improvement. Change = value at observation minus value at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  10. Change From Baseline in Patient's Assessment of Pain

    Change from Baseline in Patient's Assessment of Arthritis Pain -VAS (0 to 100 mm visual analog scale, 0 being no pain and 100 being most severe pain) was computed as Week 2, 4, 8 or 12 values minus baseline value. A negative value in change from baseline indicates an improvement.

    Change = value at observation minus value at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  11. Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment of Arthritis

    Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your arthritis affects you, how are you feeling today?" Participants responded by using a 0 - 100 mm Visual Analog Scale where 0 = very well and 100 = very poorly. Change = score at observation minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  12. Change From Baseline in Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritis

    Physician Global Assessment of Disease Activity was measured on a 0 to 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), with 0 mm = no disease activity; very good and 100 mm = worst disease activity; very poor. Change = score at observation minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  13. Change From Baseline in C- Reactive Protein (CRP) (mg/L)

    The test for CRP is a laboratory measurement for evaluation of an acute phase reactant of inflammation through the use of an ultrasensitive assay. A decrease in the level of CRP indicates reduction in inflammation and therefore improvement. Change = value at observation minus value at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 8 and 12

  14. Area Under Curve (AUC) for Change From Baseline in American College of Rheumatology-N (ACR-N)

    ACR-N = calculated for each participant by taking lowest percentage improvement in (1) swollen joint count or (2) tender joint count or (3) the median of remaining 5 components of 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. The AUC for ACR-N is measure of the area under the curve of the mean change from baseline in ACR-N. The trapezoidal rule was used to compute AUC.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  15. Change From Baseline in Euro Quality of Life (EQ-5D)

    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. Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  16. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -Physical Functioning Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  17. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -Role-Physical Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  18. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -Bodily Pain Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  19. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -General Health Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  20. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -Vitality Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change =score at Week 12 minus score at baseline

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  21. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -Social Functioning Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  22. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -Role-Emotional Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  23. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) -Mental Health Domain

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  24. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) - Physical Component Summary (PCS)

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

  25. Change From Baseline in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) - Mental Component Summary (MCS)

    SF-36 is a standardized survey evaluating 8 aspects of functional health and well being: physical and social functioning, physical and emotional role limitations, bodily pain, general health, vitality, mental health. The score for a section is an average of the individual question scores, which are scaled 0-100 (100=highest level of functioning).

    Change = score at Week 12 minus score at baseline.

    Measured: Baseline, Week 12

Timeline

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

  1. First posted30 May 2008 (estimated)
  2. Study startMar 2009
  3. Primary completionJul 2010
  4. Study completionJul 2010

Resources

More details

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

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Quadruple blind
Who is masked
Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
318 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00687193
Sponsor's protocol ID
A3921040
Status last verified
Mar 2013
First submitted
22 May 2008
Last updated
25 Mar 2013
Data monitoring committee
Yes

Publications

  • Wright G, Mysler E, Roberts KD, Shelbaya A, Sweet L, Masri KR. Impact of the Sociodemographic Index on Efficacy/Safety of Tofacitinib in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 2/3/3b/4 Studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2026 Oct 16. doi: 10.1007/s40744-026-00881-y. Online ahead of print.

    PubMed 42888330
  • Hetland ML, Strangfeld A, Bonfanti G, Soudis D, Deuring JJ, Edwards RA. Machine learning prediction and explanatory models of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib. Arthritis Res Ther. 2024 Aug 27;26(1):153. doi: 10.1186/s13075-024-03376-9.

    PubMed 39192350
  • Wright GC, Mysler E, Kwok K, Cadatal MJ, Germino R, Yndestad A, Kinch CD, Ogdie A. Impact of Race on the Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Oct;11(5):1135-1164. doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00677-y. Epub 2024 Jul 3.

    PubMed 38958913
  • Charles-Schoeman C, Hyde C, Guan S, Parikh N, Wang J, Shahbazian A, Stockert L, Andrews J. Relationship Between Paraoxonase-1 Genotype and Activity, and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events and Malignancies in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Receiving Tofacitinib. J Rheumatol. 2023 Jul 15:jrheum.2023-0112. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2023-0112. Online ahead of print.

    PubMed 37453736
  • Kristensen LE, Danese S, Yndestad A, Wang C, Nagy E, Modesto I, Rivas J, Benda B. Identification of two tofacitinib subpopulations with different relative risk versus TNF inhibitors: an analysis of the open label, randomised controlled study ORAL Surveillance. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 Jul;82(7):901-910. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223715. Epub 2023 Mar 17.

    PubMed 36931693
  • Hansen KE, Mortezavi M, Nagy E, Wang C, Connell CA, Radi Z, Litman HJ, Adami G, Rossini M. Fracture in clinical studies of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2022 Dec 27;14:1759720X221142346. doi: 10.1177/1759720X221142346. eCollection 2022.

    PubMed 36601090
  • Curtis JR, Yamaoka K, Chen YH, Bhatt DL, Gunay LM, Sugiyama N, Connell CA, Wang C, Wu J, Menon S, Vranic I, Gomez-Reino JJ. Malignancy risk with tofacitinib versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023 Mar;82(3):331-343. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-222543. Epub 2022 Dec 5.

    PubMed 36600185
  • Winthrop KL, Yndestad A, Henrohn D, Danese S, Marsal S, Galindo M, Woolcott JC, Jo H, Kwok K, Shapiro AB, Jones TV, Diehl A, Su C, Panes J, Cohen SB. Influenza Adverse Events in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ulcerative Colitis, or Psoriatic Arthritis in the Tofacitinib Clinical Development Programs. Rheumatol Ther. 2023 Apr;10(2):357-373. doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00507-z. Epub 2022 Dec 17.

    PubMed 36526796
  • 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.

    PubMed 34870800
  • 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.

    PubMed 33127856
  • 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.

    PubMed 32816215
  • 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.

    PubMed 31512746
  • 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.

    PubMed 28143815
  • 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.

    PubMed 26275429
  • Tanaka Y, Takeuchi T, Yamanaka H, Nakamura H, Toyoizumi S, Zwillich S. Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as monotherapy in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a 12-week, randomized, phase 2 study. Mod Rheumatol. 2015 Jul;25(4):514-21. doi: 10.3109/14397595.2014.995875.

    PubMed 25496464

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 2 study testing CP-690,550 in people with Arthritis, Rheumatoid, run by Pfizer at 40 sites in Japan.

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

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Mar 2013. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 40 sites in Japan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

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

What does this phase mean?

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

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

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 25 Dec 2012). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

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

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

What does the primary outcome measure?

Number of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) Response at Week 12 (time frame: Week 12). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00687193, which also lists 16 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

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

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Mar 2013.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

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

Create a free accountLog in