Efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a withdrawal and retreatment study (GO-BACK).

OBJECTIVES: The GO-BACK study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of golimumab (GLM) treatment withdrawal in adults with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who demonstrate inactive disease during a 10-month open-label (OL) GLM run-in. METHODS: Eligible participants received OL GLM in period 1. In period 2, participants who achieved inactive disease were randomized 1:1:1 to receive double-blind (DB) treatment with monthly placebo (PBO, treatment withdrawal) or continued GLM treatment given monthly (GLM QMT) or every 2 months (GLM Q2MT). Participants who did not have a disease flare continued DB treatment for ∼12 months. Participants with a disease flare discontinued DB treatment and resumed monthly OL GLM. Primary endpoint compared the proportion of participants without a disease flare in the continued GLM treatment groups (QMT or Q2MT) vs PBO in a multiplicity-controlled, step-down fashion. Safety follow-up continued for ∼3 months after last treatment. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients, out of the 323 enrolled, were eligible for participation in period 2. Both GLM QMT and GLM Q2MT were superior to treatment withdrawal (PBO) in preventing disease flare (P < 0.001), with a treatment-difference vs PBO of 50.4% and 34.4% for the GLM QMT and GLM Q2MT groups, respectively. The time-to-first flare was significantly longer (log-rank P < 0.0001) with GLM treatment compared with PBO. Of 53 participants (in Q2MT or PBO) who had a confirmed disease flare, 51 (96.2%) attained a clinical response within 3 months of restarting OL GLM. Adverse events were consistent with the known GLM safety profile. CONCLUSION: Among participants with active nr-axSpA who attained inactive disease after 10 months of GLM treatment, continued GLM treatment is well tolerated and provides superior protection against disease flares compared with GLM withdrawal. (EudraCT: 2015-004020-65, registered on 30 March 2022; NCT: 03253796, registered on 18 August 2017.).

Serious asthma events with mometasone furoate plus formoterol compared with mometasone furoate.

BACKGROUND: The safety of long-acting ß-agonists added to inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of persistent asthma has been controversial. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether administering formoterol in combination with mometasone furoate increases the risk of serious asthma outcomes (SAOs) compared with mometasone furoate alone. This clinical trial is registered as NCT01471340. METHODS: We conducted a 26-week, randomized, double-blind trial in adolescent and adult patients (≥12 years) with persistent asthma in 35 countries with the primary objective of evaluating whether mometasone furoate-formoterol increases the risk of SAOs (adjudicated hospitalization, intubation, or death) compared with mometasone furoate alone. The key efficacy end point was asthma exacerbation (composite of hospitalization of ≥24 hours, emergency department visits of <24 hours requiring systemic corticosteroids, or use of systemic corticosteroids for ≥3 consecutive days). RESULTS: Among 11,729 patients (mometasone furoate-formoterol, n = 5,868; mometasone furoate, n = 5,861), a total of 81 SAOs, all asthma-related hospitalizations, were observed in 71 patients: 45 events from 39 patients receiving mometasone furoate-formoterol and 36 events from 32 patients receiving mometasone furoate. The hazard ratio for the first SAO in the mometasone furoate-formoterol versus mometasone furoate group was 1.22 (95% CI, 0.76-1.94; P = .411). Asthma exacerbation occurred in 1,487 patients: 708 receiving mometasone furoate-formoterol and 779 receiving mometasone furoate. The hazard ratio for the first asthma exacerbation in the mometasone furoate-formoterol versus mometasone furoate group was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.98; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of formoterol to mometasone furoate maintenance therapy did not increase the risk of serious asthma-related events and reduced the risk of asthma exacerbation.

Low Occurrence of Colectomy With Long-Term (up to 4 Years) Golimumab Treatment in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Active Ulcerative Colitis: Data From the PURSUIT Maintenance and Long-Term Extension Studies.

Background: This analysis evaluated the incidence of all-cause colectomies (total or partial) among patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the golimumab (GLM) Program of Ulcerative Colitis Utilizing an Investigational Treatment (PURSUIT)-maintenance (-M) and long-term extension (-LTE) studies. Methods: Eligible PURSUIT-M trial participants completed a 6-week GLM induction trial without requiring colectomy. Responders to GLM induction were randomized 1:1:1 to GLM 50 mg, GLM 100 mg, or placebo (PBO) maintenance for up to 1 year, administered every 4 weeks (q4w). Nonresponders to GLM or PBO induction received GLM 100 mg; responders to PBO induction received PBO (each administered q4w for up to 1 year). Participants who completed PURSUIT-M were eligible to continue their treatment in the 3-year PURSUIT-LTE study. Results: A total of 60 (4.9%) colectomies were reported among the 1228 patients who enrolled in the 1-year PURSUIT-M study, which included 672 participants who continued into the 3-year PURSUIT-LTE LTE study (of which 666 were treated). The colectomy rate during the 3-year extension was lower than that observed during the maintenance phase of the study (9/666 [1.4%] compared to 51/1228 [4.2%]). The majority (43/60 [71.7%]) of the reported colectomies occurred in patients who had not responded to induction therapy and who tended to have had more severe disease characteristics at baseline. Conclusions: This retrospective evaluation of colectomy data from the PURSUIT-M and -LTE studies in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC demonstrated a low (<5%) occurrence of colectomy with long-term (up to 4 years) GLM treatment. PURSUIT-M (NCT00488631; EudraCT, 2006-003399-37).

Long-term golimumab persistence: Five-year treatment retention data pooled from pivotal Phase III clinical trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

INTRODUCTION: Golimumab, a monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), is used widely for treatment of rheumatic diseases. Long-term persistence is an important factor influencing therapeutic benefit and is a surrogate measure of efficacy. We compared five-year golimumab treatment persistence across studies, indications, and lines of therapy using pooled data from pivotal golimumab Phase III clinical trials. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis evaluated use of golimumab administered subcutaneously (50 or 100 mg every four weeks) for up to five years in 2228 adult participants with rheumatoid arthritis (RA; GO-BEFORE, GO-AFTER, and GO-FORWARD studies), psoriatic arthritis (PsA; GO-REVEAL study), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS; GO-RAISE study). Retention rate differences were evaluated by study, indication, and line of therapy using log-rank tests, and probability of treatment persistence was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Golimumab retention rates at Year 5 were consistently high when used as 1st-line therapy (69.8%) and did not differ significantly across the three indications tested (p = 0.5106) or across 1st-line studies (p = 0.2327). Retention at Year 5 was better in participants using golimumab as 1st-line than in those using it as 2nd-line (41.6%) therapy. Participants on 2nd-line golimumab therapy had a longer disease duration (median 9.2 years versus 3.7 years) than those on 1st-line golimumab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the value of long-term golimumab therapy in patients with chronic, immune-mediated rheumatic diseases when used as 1st-line (RA, PsA, AS) or 2nd-line (RA) therapy. Key Points • Golimumab is a human monoclonal antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and is approved widely for the treatment of rheumatic autoimmune diseases. • We compared the probability of treatment persistence, or the time of continuous drug use, for golimumab across five Phase III studies spanning multiple rheumatic indications over five years. • Treatment persistence was favorable and did not differ significantly for participants with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis, but persistence was greater when golimumab was used as 1st-line than as 2nd-line biologic therapy.

A phase 3 study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a pediatric dose of mometasone furoate with and without formoterol for persistent asthma.

OBJECTIVES: Asthma affects over 6 million children in the United States alone. This study investigated the efficacy and long-term safety of mometasone furoate-formoterol (MF/F) and MF monotherapy in children with asthma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This phase 3, multicenter, randomized controlled trial evaluated metered-dose inhaler twice daily (BID) dosing with MF/F 100/10 µg or MF 100 µg in children, aged 5 to 11 years, with a history of asthma for greater than or equal to 6 months and confirmed bronchodilator reversibility, who were adequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist combination therapy for greater than or equal to 4 weeks. After a 2-week run-in on MF 100 µg BID, eligible patients received 24 weeks of double-blind treatment and were followed for safety up to 26 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in AM postdose 60-minute AUC %predicted FEV1% across 12 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 181 participants received at least one dose of MF/F (n = 91) or MF (n = 90). MF/F was superior to MF across the 12-week evaluation period, with a treatment advantage of 5.21 percentage points (P < .001). Superior onset of action with MF/F over MF was achieved as early as 5 minutes postdose on day 1. Overall, approximately 50% of participants experienced one or more treatment-emergent adverse events, with fewer occurring in the MF/F group. CONCLUSIONS: In children 5 to 11 years of age with persistent asthma, the addition of F to MF was well tolerated and provided significant, rapid, and sustained improvement in lung function compared with MF alone.

Serious Asthma Outcomes and Asthma Exacerbations with Maintenance on Inhaled Corticosteroid (Mometasone Furoate)/Long-Acting Beta Agonist (Formoterol) Combination Compared to Step Down to Mometasone Monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Because of historical safety concerns with the use of long-acting ß-agonists (LABA) in asthma, step-down from inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA combination therapy to ICS monotherapy is recommended once asthma control is achieved. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit/risk question about whether patients with asthma who achieve disease control on fixed-dose ICS/LABA combination therapy, such as mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (MF/F), should continue with this therapy or be stepped down to ICS monotherapy, such as MF. METHODS: Using data from 8447 clinically stable patients with persistent asthma in the Safety Pharma Investigation of Respiratory Outcomes trial who had been receiving a stable dose of ICS/LABA for ≥4 weeks, this post hoc analysis evaluated the risk of serious asthma outcomes (SAOs) (adjudicated hospitalization, intubation, or death) and asthma exacerbation (AEX) (composite of hospitalizations ≥24 hours, emergency visits <24 hours requiring systemic corticosteroid, or systemic corticosteroid for ≥3 consecutive days) in participants randomized to remain on ICS/LABA (MF/F) or step down to ICS (MF) for 26 weeks. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in SAO risk among patients maintained on ICS/LABA with MF/F compared with those who stepped down from ICS/LABA to MF (hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61, 1.75], P = .913). The risk of AEX was significantly lower in patients maintained on ICS/LABA with MF/F compared with those who stepped down from ICS/LABA to MF (HR, 0.87 [95% CI: 0.78, 0.98], P = .020). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of a large clinical trial dataset, maintenance on ICS/LABA with MF/F is not associated with an increased risk of SAOs and also significantly reduces the risk of AEX compared with step-down from ICS/LABA to MF.