Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-003635-31 | EudraCT Number |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Participants suffering from active rheumatoid arthritis despite continued treatment with methotrexate were evaluated for improvement of disease activity (efficacy) when taking GLPG0634 (3 different doses - 50 milligram [mg], 100 mg and 200 mg daily -, each evaluated as once daily [QD] and twice daily [BID] regimen) or matching placebo for 24 weeks.
•During the course of the study, patients were also examined for any side effects that could occur (safety and tolerability), and the amount of GLPG0634 present in the blood (Pharmacokinetics) as well as the effects of GLPG0634 on disease- and mechanism of action-related parameters in the blood (Pharmacodynamics) were determined. Also, the effects of different doses and dose regiments of GLPG0634 administration on participants' disability, fatigue, and quality of life were evaluated.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | Placebo Comparator | Participants received GLPG0634 matching placebo capsules, orally, twice daily (BID) during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20 percent [%] improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on placebo while nonresponders were re-randomized to GLPG0634 100 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) or 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
|
| GLPG0634 50 mg QD | Experimental | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 50 mg QD while nonresponders were re-randomized to 100 mg QD during Weeks 13 to 24. |
|
| GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Experimental | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
| GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Experimental | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
| GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Experimental | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLPG0634 | Drug | GLPG0634 capsules. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Participants Achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 Response at Week 12 | The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response is a measurement of improvement in multiple disease assessment criteria. The ACR20 response is defined as: 1) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in tender TJC68, and 3) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) (taken from the Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used (ie, to impute a missing response, the participant was assumed to be a non-responder). | Week 12 |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR20 Response at Week 24 | ACR20 response was defined as: 1) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Galapagos Study Director | Lakefront Biotherapeutics NV | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rheumatology Associates of North Alabama, PC | Huntsville | Alabama | United States | |||
| Artho Care, Arthritis Care & Research P.C. |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 37747626 | Derived | Balsa A, Wassenberg S, Tanaka Y, Tournadre A, Orzechowski HD, Rajendran V, Lendl U, Stiers PJ, Watson C, Caporali R, Galloway J, Verschueren P. Effect of Filgotinib on Body Mass Index (BMI) and Effect of Baseline BMI on the Efficacy and Safety of Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatol Ther. 2023 Dec;10(6):1555-1574. doi: 10.1007/s40744-023-00599-1. Epub 2023 Sep 25. | |
| 36205910 |
Not provided
Not provided
A total of 1255 participants were screened of which 599 participants were randomized into the study and only 594 participants were treated.
Participants were enrolled at study sites in Europe, South America, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. The first participant was screened on 17 July 2013. The last study visit occurred on 14 May 2015.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Placebo | Participants received GLPG0634 matching placebo capsules, orally, twice daily (BID) during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20 percent [%] improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on placebo while nonresponders were re-randomized to GLPG0634 100 milligram (mg) once daily (QD) or 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period 1 (Baseline up to Week 12) |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | May 27, 2014 | Oct 26, 2020 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Experimental | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
| GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Experimental | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
| Placebo | Drug | Placebo capsules. |
|
| Week 24 |
| Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR50 Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | ACR50 response was defined as: 1) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI) 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS 4. Total HAQ-DI score 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used. | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR70 Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | ACR70 response: 1) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used. | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| ACR N% Improvement (ACR-N) Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | The ACR-N is the smallest percentage improvement in swollen and tender joints and the median of the remaining 5 core parameters, and is expected to be more sensitive to change than the ACR20, ACR50 or ACR70. It is a number varying between 0 and 100, with higher numbers indicating less severity of symptoms. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) algorithm was used (ie, to impute a missing value, the last preceding nonmissing value was used). | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| Percentage of Participants With Disease Activity Score 28 Joints Corrected for CRP (DAS28 (CRP)) European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | DAS28 (CRP) was categorized into EULAR response categories (none, moderate, good) as follows: None = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2, > 3.2 to ≤ 5.1, or > 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline ≤ 6.0 or > 0.6 to ≤ 1.2; Moderate = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 0.6 to ≤ 1.2, Actual DAS28 (CRP) > 3.2 to ≤ 5.1 or > 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 1.2, or Actual DAS28 (CRP) > 3.2 to ≤ 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 0.6 to ≤ 1.2; Good = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 1.2. LOCF algorithm was used. | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR/EULAR Remission at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | A participant's disease activity status can be defined as being in remission when scores on the TJC28, SJC28, CRP (actual value in mg/dL) and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (cm) are all ≤ 1. Non-responder imputation was used. | Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| Change From Baseline in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | The SDAI is the numerical sum of 5 outcome parameters: TJC28, SJC28, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), and CRP (mg/dL). The SDAI was categorized as follows: • High disease activity: SDAI > 26 • Moderate disease activity: 11 to 26 • Low disease activity: 3.3 to 11 • Remission: ≤ 3.3. LOCF algorithm was used. The SDAI total score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. | Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| Change From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | The CDAI is the SDAI modified to exclude CRP and is the sum of the 4 outcome parameters: TJC28, SJC28, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm). The CDAI was be categorized as follows: • High disease activity: > 22 • Moderate disease activity: 10 to 22 • Mild disease activity: 2.8 to 10 • Remission: ≤ 2.8. LOCF algorithm was used. The CDAI total score ranges from 0 to approximately 76. | Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| Change From Baseline in Quality of Life Using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) at Weeks 4, 12, and 24 | FACIT-Fatigue scale is a 13-item questionnaire, each scored 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 that are scored reversely), the greater the fatigue. The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score), with a higher score indicating a better quality of life. LOCF algorithm was used. | Baseline and Weeks 4, 12, and 24 |
| Change From Baseline in Quality of Life Using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Scores at Weeks 4, 12, and 24 | The SF-36 is a 36-item questionnaire measuring 8 domains (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health). Each domain score ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), with higher scores reflecting better health-related functional status. Two summary scale scores were computed based on weighted combinations of the 8 domain scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). LOCF algorithm was used. | Baseline and Weeks 4, 12, and 24 |
| Gilbert |
| Arizona |
| United States |
| Arizona Arthritis & Rheumatology Research PLLC | Phoenix | Arizona | United States |
| C.V. Mehta MD Medical Corporation | Hemet | California | United States |
| Center for Innovative TherapyDivision of Rheumatology, UCSD | La Jolla | California | United States |
| Desert Medical Advances | Palm Desert | California | United States |
| Desert Valley Medical Center | Victorville | California | United States |
| Infosphere Clinical Research, Inc. | West Hills | California | United States |
| RASF Clinical Research Center | Boca Raton | Florida | United States |
| Millennium Research | Ormond Beach | Florida | United States |
| Lovelace Scientific Resources | Venice | Florida | United States |
| Arthritis Center of North GA | Gainesville | Georgia | United States |
| Idaho Arthritis Center | Meridian | Idaho | United States |
| The Arthritis Center | Springfield | Illinois | United States |
| Professional Research Network of Kansas | Wichita | Kansas | United States |
| Arthritis Treatment Center | Frederick | Maryland | United States |
| Klein and Associates MD | Hagerstown | Maryland | United States |
| Private practice | Lansing | Michigan | United States |
| Mayo Clinic | Rochester | Minnesota | United States |
| Physicians East | Greenville | North Carolina | United States |
| Health Research of Oklahoma | Oklahoma City | Oklahoma | United States |
| Altoona Center Clinical Research | Duncansville | Pennsylvania | United States |
| Austin Rheumatology Research PA | Austin | Texas | United States |
| Arthritis Centers of Texas | Dallas | Texas | United States |
| Pioneer Research Solutions Inc | Houston | Texas | United States |
| Crossroads Clinical Research, LLC | Victoria | Texas | United States |
| Seattle Rheumatology Associates, PLLC | Seattle | Washington | United States |
| Mountain State Clinical Research | Clarksburg | West Virginia | United States |
| Atencion Integral en Reumatologa | Buenos Aires | Argentina |
| Rheumatology OMI | Buenos Aires | Argentina |
| Instituto Reumatologico | Córdoba | Argentina |
| Instituto Medico CER | Quilmes | Argentina |
| Instituto de Asistencia Reumatologia Integral | San Fernando | Argentina |
| Centro Médico Privado de Reumatología | San Miguel de Tucumán | Argentina |
| Royal Prince Alfred Hospital | Camperdown | Australia |
| Monash Medical Centre | Clayton | Australia |
| Repatriation General Hospital | Daw Park | Australia |
| Princess Alexandra Hospital | Woolloongabba | Australia |
| Medical University/ AKH Vienna/ Dep.of Rheumatology 6J | Vienna | Austria |
| Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc | Brussels | Belgium |
| Hospital Brugmann | Brussels | Belgium |
| Rheuma Instituut | Hasselt | Belgium |
| AZ Groeninge | Kortrijk | Belgium |
| UZ Leuven | Leuven | Belgium |
| CHU de Liège | Liège | Belgium |
| "Multiprofile Hospital for Active Treatment - Kaspela" LTD | Plovdiv | Bulgaria |
| MHAT Ruse AD | Rousse | Bulgaria |
| Clinic of Rheumatology MHAT | Sofia | Bulgaria |
| Diagnostic Consultative Center "Sveta Anna" LTD | Sofia | Bulgaria |
| National Transport Hospital "Tsar Boris" III | Sofia | Bulgaria |
| Rheumatology Clinic | Sofia | Bulgaria |
| Hospital Regional "Guillermo Grant Benavente" | Concepción | Chile |
| Instituto Terapias Oncologicas Providencia | Santiago | Chile |
| Prosalud | Santiago | Chile |
| Someal SA | Santiago | Chile |
| Centro de Investigacion Clínica del Sur Freire | Temuco | Chile |
| Private Office | Temuco | Chile |
| Centro Integral de Reumatologia de Caribe | Barranquilla | Colombia |
| Fundación del caribe para la investigación medica Fundación BIOS | Barranquilla | Colombia |
| Centro Integral de Reumatologia e Inmunologia SAS | Bogotá | Colombia |
| Cirei Sas | Bogotá | Colombia |
| Idearg S.A.S. | Bogotá | Colombia |
| Medicity S.A.S. | Bucaramanga | Colombia |
| Clinica de Arthritis Temprana S.A.S. | Cali | Colombia |
| Preventive Care SAS | Cundinamarca | Colombia |
| Hospital Pablo Tobon Uribe | Medellín | Colombia |
| Revmatologie S.R.O | Brno | Czechia |
| Ambulance Revmatologie a Interniho Lekarstvi | Kladno | Czechia |
| Revmatologicka ambulance | Praha-Nusle | Czechia |
| Medical Plus, s.r.o. | Uherské Hradiště | Czechia |
| PV-Medical | Zlín | Czechia |
| Hopitaux universitaires de Strasbourg | Strasbourg | France |
| Charite Mitte, Rheumatologie Neue Therapien | Berlin | Germany |
| Schlossparkklinik - Akad. Lehrkrankenhaus Charite | Berlin | Germany |
| Klinikum Goethe-Universität | Frankfurt | Germany |
| Schwerpunktpraxis fuer Rheumatologie | Hamburg | Germany |
| Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet | Herne | Germany |
| Centro Medico | Guatemala City | Guatemala |
| Clinica de Especialidades Medicas | Guatemala City | Guatemala |
| Clinica Medica Especializada en Reumatologia | Guatemala City | Guatemala |
| Clinica Medica | Guatemala City | Guatemala |
| Reuma S.A. | Guatemala City | Guatemala |
| Reuma-Centro | Guatemala City | Guatemala |
| DRC | Balatonfüred | Hungary |
| Budai Irgalmasrendi Korhaz | Budapest | Hungary |
| Qualiclinic Ltd | Budapest | Hungary |
| Revita Clinic | Budapest | Hungary |
| Markhot Ferenc Korhaz | Eger | Hungary |
| Bekes Megyei Pandy Kalman Korhaz, Reumatologiai Osztaly | Gyula | Hungary |
| Csolnoky Ferenc County Hospital | Veszprém | Hungary |
| Carmel Medical Center | Haifa | Israel |
| Rambam Medical Center | Haifa | Israel |
| Sheba Medical Center | Ramat Gan | Israel |
| M&M Centre Ltd. | Adazi | Latvia |
| Meda D | Daugavplis | Latvia |
| L. Atikes doktorats | Liepāja | Latvia |
| "Bruninieku" polyclinic | Riga | Latvia |
| Arija's Ancane's Family Doctor | Riga | Latvia |
| Centro de Estudios de Investigacion Basica y Clinica, SC | Guadalajara | Mexico |
| Arké Estudios Clínicos | México | Mexico |
| Clinstile, S.A. de C.V. | México | Mexico |
| Hospital General de México | México | Mexico |
| Accelerium Clinical Research | Monterrey | Mexico |
| Hospital Universitario José E. González | Monterrey | Mexico |
| Centro de Alta Especialidad en Reumatología e Investigación del Potosí, S.C. | San Luis Potosí City | Mexico |
| IMSP Institutul de Cardiologie | Chisinau | Moldova |
| North Shore hospital | Auckland | New Zealand |
| Waikato Hospital | Hamilton | New Zealand |
| Timaru Rheumatology Studies | Timaru | New Zealand |
| NZOZ Osteo-Medic s.c. | Bialystok | Poland |
| Silesiana Centrum Medyczne | Bytom | Poland |
| Medica Pro Familia Sp. z o.o. S.K.A. | Katowice | Poland |
| Centrum Medyczne Plejady | Krakow | Poland |
| Nowomed | Krakow | Poland |
| Nzoz "Dobry Lekarz" | Krakow | Poland |
| NZOZ Przychodnia Lekarska "Eskulap" | Skierniewice | Poland |
| Powiatowy Zakrad Opieki Zdrowotnej w Starachowicach | Starachowice | Poland |
| NS ZOZ Medicus Bonus | Środa Wielkopolska | Poland |
| NZOZ Nasz Lekarz | Torun | Poland |
| AMED Medical Center | Warsaw | Poland |
| Wojewodzki Szpital Specjalistyczny we Wroclawiu | Wroclaw | Poland |
| I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University | Moscow | Russia |
| Research Institute of Rheumatology RAMS | Moscow | Russia |
| State University of Medicine and Dentistry | Moscow | Russia |
| City Clinical Hospital 5 | Nizhny Novgorod | Russia |
| Ryazan State Medical University | Ryazan | Russia |
| City Hospital # 26 | Saint Petersburg | Russia |
| Vladimir Reg Clin Hosp | Vladimir | Russia |
| Complejo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña | A Coruña | Spain |
| Hospital Reina Sofa | Córdoba | Spain |
| Hospital General Universitario de Elche | Elche | Spain |
| Hospital Universitario de Mostoles | Móstoles | Spain |
| Consorci Sanitari Parc Tauli | Sabadell | Spain |
| Hospital Infanta Luisa | Seville | Spain |
| City Hospital #5 | Donetsk | Ukraine |
| V. Gusak Institute of Urgent and Recovery Surgery | Donetsk | Ukraine |
| City Hospital #13 | Kharkiv | Ukraine |
| City Hospital #8 | Kharkiv | Ukraine |
| Government Institution | Kharkiv | Ukraine |
| Central Outpatient Hospital of Deanyanskyy Distric | Kiev | Ukraine |
| Central regional polyclinic of Pechersk District | Kyiv | Ukraine |
| Municipal Institution Lutsk City Clinical Hospital | Lutsk | Ukraine |
| Derived |
| Combe B, Besuyen R, Gomez-Centeno A, Matsubara T, Sancho Jimenez JJ, Yin Z, Buch MH. Geographic Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of Filgotinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatol Ther. 2023 Feb;10(1):35-51. doi: 10.1007/s40744-022-00494-1. Epub 2022 Oct 7. |
| 31912462 | Derived | Tarrant JM, Galien R, Li W, Goyal L, Pan Y, Hawtin R, Zhang W, Van der Aa A, Taylor PC. Filgotinib, a JAK1 Inhibitor, Modulates Disease-Related Biomarkers in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from Two Randomized, Controlled Phase 2b Trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2020 Mar;7(1):173-190. doi: 10.1007/s40744-019-00192-5. Epub 2020 Jan 7. |
| 27993829 | Derived | Westhovens R, Taylor PC, Alten R, Pavlova D, Enriquez-Sosa F, Mazur M, Greenwald M, Van der Aa A, Vanhoutte F, Tasset C, Harrison P. Filgotinib (GLPG0634/GS-6034), an oral JAK1 selective inhibitor, is effective in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and insufficient response to MTX: results from a randomised, dose-finding study (DARWIN 1). Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Jun;76(6):998-1008. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210104. Epub 2016 Dec 19. |
| FG001 |
| GLPG0634 50 mg QD |
Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 50 mg QD while nonresponders were re-randomized to 100 mg QD during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| FG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| FG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| FG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| FG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| FG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| COMPLETED |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
|
| Period 2 (Week 13 to Week 24) |
|
|
Safety population included all participants who were randomized and received at least one dose of study medication.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Placebo | Participants received GLPG0634 matching placebo capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20 percent% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on placebo while nonresponders were re-randomized to GLPG0634 100 mg QD or 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| BG001 | GLPG0634 50 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 50 mg QD while nonresponders were re-randomized to 100 mg QD during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| BG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| BG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| BG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| BG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| BG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| BG007 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | Mean | Full Range | years |
| |||||||||||||||
| Sex: Female, Male | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Race (NIH/OMB) | Count of Participants | Participants |
| ||||||||||||||||
| Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) duration | Mean | Full Range | years |
| |||||||||||||||
| C-reactive protein (CRP) at Baseline | Mean | Full Range | milligram per liter (mg/L) |
| |||||||||||||||
| Corrected tender joint count based on 68 joints (TJC68) at Baseline | 68 joints were assessed for tenderness and joints are classified as tender/not tender giving a total possible tender joint count score of 0 to 68. | Mean | Full Range | joint count |
| ||||||||||||||
| Corrected swollen joint count based on 66 joints (SJC66) at Baseline | 66 joints were assessed for swelling and joints are classified as swollen/not swollen giving a total possible swollen joint count score of 0 to 66. | Mean | Full Range | joint count |
|
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Percentage of Participants Achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 Response at Week 12 | The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response is a measurement of improvement in multiple disease assessment criteria. The ACR20 response is defined as: 1) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in tender TJC68, and 3) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) (taken from the Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used (ie, to impute a missing response, the participant was assumed to be a non-responder). | Intent-to-treat (ITT) population included all participants in the safety population who had post-randomization data for at least one efficacy parameter. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Week 12 |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR20 Response at Week 24 | ACR20 response was defined as: 1) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 20% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used. | ITT population. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Week 24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR50 Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | ACR50 response was defined as: 1) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI) 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS 4. Total HAQ-DI score 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used. | ITT population. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving an ACR70 Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | ACR70 response: 1) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in SJC66, and 2) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in TJC68, and 3) ≥ 70% improvement from baseline in at least 3 of the following 5 items: 1. Pain VAS (taken from the HAQ-DI), 2. Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 3. Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity VAS, 4. Total HAQ-DI score, and 5. CRP. Non-responder imputation was used. | ITT population. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | ACR N% Improvement (ACR-N) Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | The ACR-N is the smallest percentage improvement in swollen and tender joints and the median of the remaining 5 core parameters, and is expected to be more sensitive to change than the ACR20, ACR50 or ACR70. It is a number varying between 0 and 100, with higher numbers indicating less severity of symptoms. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) algorithm was used (ie, to impute a missing value, the last preceding nonmissing value was used). | ITT population with available data were analyzed. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | percentage of improvement | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants With Disease Activity Score 28 Joints Corrected for CRP (DAS28 (CRP)) European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | DAS28 (CRP) was categorized into EULAR response categories (none, moderate, good) as follows: None = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2, > 3.2 to ≤ 5.1, or > 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline ≤ 6.0 or > 0.6 to ≤ 1.2; Moderate = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 0.6 to ≤ 1.2, Actual DAS28 (CRP) > 3.2 to ≤ 5.1 or > 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 1.2, or Actual DAS28 (CRP) > 3.2 to ≤ 5.1 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 0.6 to ≤ 1.2; Good = Actual DAS28 (CRP) ≤ 3.2 AND Improvement in DAS28 (CRP) from baseline > 1.2. LOCF algorithm was used. | ITT population. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Percentage of Participants Achieving ACR/EULAR Remission at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | A participant's disease activity status can be defined as being in remission when scores on the TJC28, SJC28, CRP (actual value in mg/dL) and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (cm) are all ≤ 1. Non-responder imputation was used. | ITT population. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | The SDAI is the numerical sum of 5 outcome parameters: TJC28, SJC28, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), and CRP (mg/dL). The SDAI was categorized as follows: • High disease activity: SDAI > 26 • Moderate disease activity: 11 to 26 • Low disease activity: 3.3 to 11 • Remission: ≤ 3.3. LOCF algorithm was used. The SDAI total score ranges from 0 to approximately 86. | ITT population with available data were analyzed. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | units on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 | The CDAI is the SDAI modified to exclude CRP and is the sum of the 4 outcome parameters: TJC28, SJC28, Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm), and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (in cm). The CDAI was be categorized as follows: • High disease activity: > 22 • Moderate disease activity: 10 to 22 • Mild disease activity: 2.8 to 10 • Remission: ≤ 2.8. LOCF algorithm was used. The CDAI total score ranges from 0 to approximately 76. | ITT population with available data were analyzed. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | units on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in Quality of Life Using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) at Weeks 4, 12, and 24 | FACIT-Fatigue scale is a 13-item questionnaire, each scored 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 that are scored reversely), the greater the fatigue. The sum of all responses resulted in the FACIT-Fatigue score for a total possible score of 0 (worse score) to 52 (better score), with a higher score indicating a better quality of life. LOCF algorithm was used. | ITT population with available data were analyzed. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | units on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 4, 12, and 24 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Secondary | Change From Baseline in Quality of Life Using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Scores at Weeks 4, 12, and 24 | The SF-36 is a 36-item questionnaire measuring 8 domains (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health). Each domain score ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best), with higher scores reflecting better health-related functional status. Two summary scale scores were computed based on weighted combinations of the 8 domain scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). LOCF algorithm was used. | ITT population with available data were analyzed. Participants who switched treatment at Week 12 were handled as if they discontinued at Week 12. | Posted | Mean | Standard Error | units on a scale | Baseline and Weeks 4, 12, and 24 |
|
Baseline through end of study drug treatment (average exposure: 160.7 days) plus 10 days
Nonresponders from Placebo (15 participants), 50 mg QD (19 participants) moved to 100 mg QD group and nonresponders from Placebo (15 participants) and 25 mg BID (17 participants) moved to 50 mg BID group from Week 13 to Week 24.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Placebo | Participants received GLPG0634 matching placebo capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20 percent% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on placebo while nonresponders were re-randomized to GLPG0634 100 mg QD or 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. | 0 | 86 | 4 | 86 | 11 | 86 |
| EG001 | GLPG0634 50 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 50 mg QD while nonresponders were re-randomized to 100 mg QD during Weeks 13 to 24. | 0 | 82 | 0 | 82 | 23 | 82 |
| EG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. | 0 | 119 | 4 | 119 | 13 | 119 |
| EG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. | 0 | 86 | 2 | 86 | 21 | 86 |
| EG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. | 0 | 86 | 2 | 86 | 23 | 86 |
| EG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. | 0 | 117 | 0 | 117 | 22 | 117 |
| EG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. | 1 | 84 | 3 | 84 | 15 | 84 |
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limb fracture | Injury, poisoning and procedural complications | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pericardial effusion | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Angina unstable | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Acute myocardial infarction | Cardiac disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Anaemia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pancytopenia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hyperventilation | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Ischaemic cerebral infarction | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abortion spontaneous | Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Abortion spontaneous complete | Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vertigo | Ear and labyrinth disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Inflammation | General disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Muscle twitching | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Dehydration | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Appendicitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Pneumonia | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Diabetic gangrene | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Subcutaneous abscess | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Erysipelas | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Intervertebral discitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Septic shock | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
|
| Term | Organ System | Source Vocabulary | Assessment Type | Notes | Statistical Information |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypertension | Vascular disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Headache | Nervous system disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nausea | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Vomiting | Gastrointestinal disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Hypercholesterolaemia | Metabolism and nutrition disorders | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Gastroenteritis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Nasopharyngitis | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
| |
| Upper respiratory tract infection | Infections and infestations | MedDRA 18.0 | Systematic Assessment |
|
The sponsor must review and approve any results of the study or abstracts for professional meetings prepared by the investigator(s). Published data must not compromise the objectives of the study. Data from individual study centers in multicenter studies must not be published separately.
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical Trial Information Desk | Galapagos N.V. | +32 (0)15 342 900 | rd@glpg.com |
| Prot_000.pdf |
| SAP | No | Yes | No | Statistical Analysis Plan | Jun 18, 2015 | Oct 26, 2020 | SAP_001.pdf |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001172 | Arthritis, Rheumatoid |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001168 | Arthritis |
| D007592 | Joint Diseases |
| D009140 | Musculoskeletal Diseases |
| D012216 | Rheumatic Diseases |
| D003240 | Connective Tissue Diseases |
| D017437 | Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases |
| D001327 | Autoimmune Diseases |
| D007154 | Immune System Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| C584571 | GLPG0634 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Adverse event and treatment failure |
|
| Non compliance with study medication |
|
| Treatment failure |
|
| Adverse Event |
|
| Lost to Follow-up |
|
| Male |
|
| Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
| Asian |
|
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander |
|
| Black or African American |
|
| White |
|
| More than one race |
|
| Unknown or Not Reported |
|
Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics. |
| Regression, Logistic |
| 0.0435 |
P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method. |
| Difference in percentage rates |
| 19.3 |
| 2-Sided |
| 95 |
| 4.7 |
| 34 |
| Superiority |
| Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics. | Regression, Logistic | 0.0068 | P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method. | Difference in percentage rates | 24.4 | 2-Sided | 95 | 10.1 | 38.8 | Superiority |
| Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics. | Regression, Logistic | 0.1236 | P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method. | Difference in percentage rates | 12.8 | 2-Sided | 95 | -2 | 27.6 | Superiority |
| Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics. | Regression, Logistic | 0.1056 | P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method. | Difference in percentage rates | 15.8 | 2-Sided | 95 | 1 | 30.6 | Superiority |
| Pairwise comparisons of each group vs. the placebo group using a logistic regression model with factors treatment group, geographical region, and prior use of biologics. | Regression, Logistic | < 0.0001 | P-value has been corrected for multiplicity according to Hommel's closed-testing method. | Difference in percentage rates | 34.4 | 2-Sided | 95 | 20.7 | 48.1 | Superiority |
Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| GLPG0634 100 mg QD |
Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| GLPG0634 100 mg QD |
Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| OG002 |
| GLPG0634 100 mg QD |
Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| OG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| OG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| OG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| OG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
| OG002 | GLPG0634 100 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG003 | GLPG0634 200 mg QD | Participants received GLPG0634 200 mg capsules, orally, QD during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG004 | GLPG0634 25 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 25 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 12. Participants who were responders (having at least 20% improvement on TJC68 and SJC66) remained on 25 mg BID while nonresponders were re-randomized to 50 mg BID during Weeks 13 to 24. |
| OG005 | GLPG0634 50 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 50 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
| OG006 | GLPG0634 100 mg BID | Participants received GLPG0634 100 mg capsules, orally, BID during Weeks 1 to 24. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|