Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
Phase 3 N=488 Randomized Quadruple-blind Treatment

PALACE 2: Efficacy and Safety Study of Apremilast to Treat Active Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriatic Arthritis

Enrolled (actual)
488
Serious AEs
9.4%
Results posted
May 2014
Primary outcome: Primary: Percentage of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) Response at Week 16 — 18.9; 37.4; 32.1 percentage of participants — p=0.0060

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 3
Interventions
Apremilast 20mg (Drug); Apremilast 30mg (Drug); Placebo + 20 mg Apremilast (Drug); Placebo + 30 mg Apremilast (Drug)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Amgen
Primary completion
Jul 2012

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Percentage of Participants With an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) Response at Week 16
18.9; 37.4; 32.1 0.0060 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire- Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at Week 16
-0.053; -0.157; -0.193 0.0042 sig
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With an ACR 20 Response at Week 24
15.7; 31.3; 24.7 0.0394 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire- Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at Week 24
-0.085; -0.165; -0.206 0.0191 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Functioning Domain at Week 16
0.81; 2.17; 2.91 0.0237 sig
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With a Modified Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) Response at Week 16
33.3; 47.9; 48.1 0.0065 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Patient's Assessment of Pain at Week 16
-7.0; -12.5; -11.9 0.0648
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Entheses Score (MASES) at Week 16
-1.0; -0.9; -1.4 0.3496
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score at Week 16
-1.1; -0.8; -1.3 0.5438
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at Week 16
-3.30; -7.75; -6.81 0.0035 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) at Week 16
-0.27; -0.74; -0.67 0.0004 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) Score at Week 16
0.63; 0.91; 2.75 0.0318 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Functioning Domain at Week 24
1.44; 2.97; 3.30 0.0473 sig
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With a Modified Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) Response at Week 24
24.5; 39.9; 32.1 0.1195
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Patient's Assessment of Pain at Week 24
-8.0; -11.5; -9.7 0.5067
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Entheses Score (MASES) at Week 24
-0.9; -0.9; -1.3 0.2719
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score at Week 24
-1.1; -0.9; -1.4 0.3705
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at Week 24
-3.21; -7.71; -6.35 0.0097 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the Disease Activity Score (DAS28) at Week 24
-0.27; -0.73; -0.65 0.0011 sig
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) Score at Week 24
0.52; 0.68; 2.65 0.0303 sig
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With MASES Improvement ≥ 20% at Week 16
52.9; 54.2; 56.4 0.6022
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis Improvement ≥ 1 Point at Week 16
59.1; 62.3; 61.6 0.7337
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With Good or Moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Response at Week 16
31.4; 53.4; 48.8 0.0014 sig
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With MASES Improvement ≥ 20% at Week 24
51.0; 57.0; 57.4 0.3376
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis Improvement ≥ 1 Point at Week 24
62.1; 68.8; 68.5 0.3959
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With Good or Moderate EULAR Response at Week 24
21.4; 41.7; 33.3 0.0142 sig
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With a ACR 50 Response at Week 16
5.0; 14.7; 10.5 0.0589
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With an ACR 70 Response at Week 16
0.6; 3.7; 1.2 0.5620
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With an ACR 50 Response at Week 24
8.8; 14.1; 11.7 0.3629
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With a ACR 70 Response at Week 24
3.1; 5.5; 2.5 0.7273
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving a MASES Score of Zero at Week 16
23.1; 29.0; 20.8 0.7023
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Dactylitis Score of Zero at Week 16
40.9; 42.9; 41.1 0.9698
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving a MASES Score of Zero at Week 24
24.0; 29.9; 22.8 0.8424
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Dactylitis Score of Zero at Week 24
40.9; 44.2; 46.6 0.4811
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With a ACR 20 Response at Week 52
53.3; 47.5; 52.9; 52.6
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at Week 52
-0.208; -0.310; -0.192; -0.330
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale Score at Week 52
4.13; 5.97; 4.05; 4.97
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With a Modified PsARC Response at Week 52
78.3; 73.3; 72.4; 74.6
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the Patient Assessment of Pain at Week 52
-15.6; -16.0; -13.5; -12.9
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Entheses Score (MASES) at Week 52
-2.5; -2.5; -1.7; -2.1
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the Dactylitis Severity Score at Week 52
-1.9; -2.1; -1.8; -1.8
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the CDAI Score at Week 52
-13.66; -13.13; -12.03; -14.38
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the DAS28 at Week 52
-1.18; -1.18; -1.11; -1.30
SECONDARY
Change From Baseline in the FACIT-Fatigue Scale Score at Week 52
1.97; 4.95; 2.45; 4.38
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With MASES Improvement ≥ 20% at Week 52
72.5; 79.5; 70.0; 69.2
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With Dactylitis Improvement ≥ 1 Point at Week 52
95.7; 88.9; 80.7; 85.0
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving Good or Moderate EULAR Response at Week 52
70.0; 64.5; 68.0; 67.5
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With an ACR 50 Response at Week 52
30.5; 27.4; 26.7; 18.6
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With an ACR 70 Response at Week 52
16.9; 14.3; 9.8; 6.8
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving a MASES Score of Zero at Week 52
42.5; 41.0; 40.0; 37.2
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving a Dactylitis Score of Zero at Week 52
78.3; 77.8; 57.9; 65.0
SECONDARY
Number of Participants With Treatment Emergent Adverse Events During the Placebo-Controlled Phase
72; 106; 96; 28; 53; 57
SECONDARY
Number of Participants With TEAEs During the Apremilast-Exposure Period
202; 53; 207; 102; 5; 100

Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine whether apremilast is safe and effective in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Apremilast is proposed to improve signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (tender and swollen joints, pain, physical function) in treated patients.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Males or females, aged ≥ 18 years at time of consent.
  • Have a diagnosis of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA, by any criteria) of ≥ 6 months duration.
  • Meet the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) PsA at time of screening.
  • Must have been inadequately treated by disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)
  • May not have axial involvement alone
  • Concurrent Treatment allowed with methotrexate, leflunomide, or sulfasalazine
  • Have ≥ 3 swollen AND ≥ 3 tender joints.
  • Males & Females must use contraception
  • Stable dose of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), narcotics and low dose oral corticosteroids allowed.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Pregnant or breast feeding.
  • History of allergy to any component of the investigational product.
  • Hepatitis B surface antigen and/or Hepatitis C antibody positive at screening.
  • Therapeutic failure on > 3 agents for PsA or > 1 biologic tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01212757). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search