Effect of Intravenous Golimumab on Fatigue and the Relationship with Clinical Response in Adults with Active Ankylosing Spondylitis in the Phase 3 GO-ALIVE Study.

INTRODUCTION: We studied the effect of intravenous (IV)-golimumab on fatigue and the association of fatigue improvement with clinical response post hoc in adults with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in the GO-ALIVE trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized to IV-golimumab 2 mg/kg (N = 105) at week (W) 0, W4, then every 8 W (Q8W) or placebo (N = 103) at W0, W4, W12, crossover to IV-golimumab 2 mg/kg at W16, W20, then Q8W through W52. Fatigue measures included Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) Question #1 (fatigue; 0 [none], 10 [worst]; decrease indicates improvement) and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) vitality subscale (0 [worst], 100 [best]; increase indicates improvement). Minimum clinically important difference is ≥ 1 for BASDAI-fatigue and ≥ 5 for SF-36 vitality. GO-ALIVE primary endpoint was Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society ≥ 20% improvement criteria (ASAS20). Other clinical outcomes assessed included other ASAS responses, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index score. The distribution-based minimally important differences (MIDs) were determined for BASDAI-fatigue and SF-36 vitality. The relationship between improvement in fatigue and clinical outcomes was assessed via multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Mean changes in BASDAI-fatigue/SF-36 vitality scores were greater with IV-golimumab versus placebo at W16 (- 2.74/8.46 versus - 0.73/2.08, both nominal p ≤ 0.003); by W52 (after crossover), differences between groups narrowed (- 3.18/9.39 versus - 3.07/9.17). BASDAI-fatigue/SF-36 vitality MIDs were achieved by greater proportions of IV-golimumab-treated versus placebo-treated patients at W16 (75.2%/71.4% versus 42.7%/35.0%). A one-point/five-point improvement in BASDAI-fatigue/SF-36 vitality scores at W16 increased likelihood of achieving ASAS20 (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]: 3.15 [2.21, 4.50] and 2.10 [1.62, 2.71], respectively) and ASAS40 (3.04 [2.15, 4.28] and 2.24 [1.68, 3.00], respectively) responses at W16; concurrent improvements and clinical response at W52 were consistent. A one-point/five-point improvement in BASDAI-fatigue/SF-36 vitality scores at W16 predicted increased likelihood of achieving ASAS20 (1.62 [1.35, 1.95] and 1.52 [1.25, 1.86], respectively) and ASAS40 (1.62 [1.37, 1.92] and 1.44 [1.20, 1.73], respectively) responses at W52. CONCLUSIONS: IV-golimumab provided important and sustained fatigue improvement in patients with AS that positively associated with achieving clinical response. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02186873.

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a type of arthritis that mostly affects the spine. Patients with AS also often have severe fatigue. Intravenous (IV)-golimumab, which blocks the inflammatory action of tumor necrosis factor, is approved to treat AS. We used information from a clinical trial (GO-ALIVE) to determine whether IV-golimumab reduced fatigue in patients with AS, and if fatigue improvement was associated with improvement in other AS symptoms, including spinal pain, ability to function, and inflammation. In the 1-year GO-ALIVE study, patients were assigned to receive either IV-golimumab or placebo. Patients assigned to placebo were switched to IV-golimumab starting at week 16. The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) fatigue question and the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) vitality subscale were used to assess fatigue. Improvement in AS symptoms was measured using the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society ≥ 20% and ≥ 40%  improvement criteria (ASAS20 and ASAS40). After 16 weeks of treatment, patients treated with IV-golimumab, on average, had statistically significantly greater improvement in both measures of fatigue than patients treated with placebo. At 1 year, after the placebo group had received IV-golimumab starting at week 16, improvement in fatigue was similar between groups. Improvement in fatigue at week 16 increased the likelihood that ASAS20 and ASAS40 would be achieved at week 16. Similar results were observed at 1 year. Additionally, improvement in fatigue at week 16 predicted the likelihood of achieving ASAS20 and ASAS40 at 1 year. Together, these results demonstrate that IV-golimumab provided important, long-term improvement in fatigue in patients with AS that was positively associated with improvement in AS symptoms.

Effectiveness and safety of intravenous golimumab with and without concomitant methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the prospective, noninterventional AWARE study.

BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies are often prescribed for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have inadequate responses to or are intolerant of methotrexate (MTX) and patients with poor prognostic indicators. This post hoc analysis evaluated effectiveness and safety of intravenous golimumab + MTX vs golimumab without MTX in RA patients. METHODS: AWARE, a real-world, prospective and pragmatic, Phase 4 study, compared effectiveness and safety of golimumab and infliximab in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients. All treatment decisions were at the discretion of the treating rheumatologist. Effectiveness was evaluated by mean change in CDAI scores at Months 6 and 12. Safety was monitored through approximately 1 year. RESULTS: Among 685 golimumab-treated patients, 420 (61%) received concomitant MTX during the study and 265 (39%) did not receive MTX after enrollment; 63% and 72%, respectively, discontinued the study. Relative to golimumab without MTX, golimumab + MTX patients had shorter mean disease duration (8.7 vs 10.0 years) and a lower proportion received prior biologics (60% vs 72%); mean ± standard deviation (SD) baseline CDAI scores were similar (30.8 ± 15.1 and 32.6 ± 15.4). Mean ± SD changes from baseline in CDAI scores at Months 6 and 12, respectively, were similar with golimumab + MTX (- 10.2 ± 14.2 and - 10.8 ± 13.8) and golimumab without MTX (- 9.6 ± 12.9 and - 9.9 ± 13.1). The incidence of adverse events/100 patient-years (PY) (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 155.6 (145.6, 166.1) for golimumab + MTX and 191.2 (176.2, 207.1) for golimumab without MTX; infections were the most common type. The incidence of infusion reactions/100PY (95% CI) was 2.1 (1.1, 3.6) for golimumab + MTX versus 5.1 (2.9, 8.3) for golimumab without MTX; none were considered serious. For golimumab + MTX versus golimumab without MTX, rates/100PY (95% CI) of serious infections, opportunistic infections, and malignancies were 2.6 (1.5, 4.3) versus 7.0 (4.4, 10.6), 0.9 (0.3, 2.0) versus 2.6 (1.1, 5.0), and 3.0 (1.7, 4.7) versus 1.0 (0.2, 2.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Mean change in CDAI score in the  golimumab without MTX group was generally similar to that of the golimumab + MTX group through 1 year, regardless of prior biologic therapy. Adverse events were consistent with the known IV golimumab safety profile. These results provide real world evidential data that may assist healthcare providers and patients with RA in making informed treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02728934 05/04/2016.

Response to Treatment with Intravenous Golimumab or Infliximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: PROMIS Results from the Real-World Observational Phase 4 AWARE Study.

INTRODUCTION: To assess changes in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) outcomes related to social, mental, and physical well-being after approximately 1 year of intravenous (IV) golimumab or infliximab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using real-world evidence from AWARE. METHODS: AWARE was a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter, observational, U.S.-based phase 4 study of 1270 RA patients who initiated treatment with IV golimumab or infliximab. PROMIS-29 and PROMIS short form (SF) Fatigue 7a and Pain Interference 6b questionnaires were administered at baseline and infusions 2, 5, and 8 (approximately weeks  4, 28, and 52 for IV golimumab and weeks  2, 22, and 46 for infliximab). Mean changes from baseline in all PROMIS-29 domains and respective SFs and response rates for achieving ≥ 3, ≥ 5, or ≥ 10-point improvements were determined. RESULTS: Among all patients, baseline mean ± SD PROMIS T-scores were consistent between treatment groups and indicated worse physical function (38.2 ± 6.8 IV golimumab, 38.0 ± 6.9 infliximab), more pain interference (63.0 ± 7.6 IV golimumab, 63.9 ± 7.8 infliximab), and greater fatigue (58.4 ± 9.9 IV golimumab, 59.4 ± 10.0 infliximab) in these patients vs the general U.S. population (T-score = 50). Through the 8th infusion of either treatment, IV golimumab- and infliximab-treated patients achieved meaningful improvements (≥ 3-point improvement in T-scores) in all PROMIS-29 domains and respective SFs, and the proportions of patients with ≥ 3, ≥ 5, or ≥ 10-point improvements in T-scores increased from infusion 2 through infusion 8. CONCLUSIONS: RA patients treated with IV golimumab or infliximab achieved comparable improvements across social, mental, and physical well-being PROMIS measures. Additionally, PROMIS detected meaningful clinical changes in patient-reported outcomes in both treatment groups. GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02728934.

Population Pharmacokinetic and Exposure-Response Model Simulations: Predicted Exposure and Efficacy for Maintenance Doses of Intravenous Golimumab Every 6 or 8 Weeks in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: Golimumab is approved to treat moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis when given intravenously at weeks 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W) with concomitant methotrexate. These analyses assessed whether a shorter dosing interval could ameliorate diminished efficacy experienced by a small proportion of patients toward the end of the dosing interval. METHODS: Population pharmacokinetic and exposure-response modeling simulations were performed for intravenous golimumab 2 mg/kg at weeks 0 and 4, then Q8W or every 6 weeks (Q6W) through 1 year. A 2-compartment pharmacokinetic model with linear clearance developed based on GO-FURTHER (A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial of Golimumab, an Anti-TNFα Monoclonal Antibody, Administered Intravenously, in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Despite Methotrexate Therapy) study data was used for pharmacokinetic simulations. A latent-variable indirect exposure-response model developed based on GO-FURTHER American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, respectively) data was used to predict clinical endpoints of ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response rates. FINDINGS: For Q6W and Q8W dosing, respectively, predicted median golimumab steady-state trough (Ctrough,ss) concentrations were 0.57 and 0.24 µg/mL, and Cmax at steady state values were 33.1 and 32.9 µg/mL. Predicted peak median ACR20 steady-state response rates were 76.7% (Q6W) and 75.6% (Q8W). Predicted median ACR20 response rates at Ctrough,ss increased by 4.7 percentage points with Q6W (73.7%) versus Q8W (69.0%) dosing. Greater improvement in ACR20 response rates at trough time points was predicted in patients with lower golimumab trough serum concentrations. Consistent findings were observed for ACR50/ACR70 response rates. IMPLICATIONS: These simulations suggest that intravenous golimumab Q6W dosing increases golimumab Ctrough,ss, which may improve clinical response in the small proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis with waning efficacy at the end of the standard dosing interval. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT00973479. Clinicaltrialsregister.eu: EudraCT 2008-006064-11.

Improvement in disease activity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis who switched from intravenous infliximab to intravenous golimumab in the ACR RISE registry.

Infliximab and golimumab are intravenously (IV) administered tumor necrosis factor inhibitors approved to treat moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with concomitant methotrexate. Owing to differences in biologic construct, patients with IV-infliximab treatment failure may benefit from switching to IV-golimumab. Utilizing the ACR's Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE), a large electronic health records registry based in the USA, we assessed RA disease activity in patients switching from IV-infliximab to IV-golimumab. This retrospective, longitudinal, single-arm study included adults (≥ 18 years) with ≥ 1 RA diagnosis code between 2014 and 2018 and ≥ 1 IV-infliximab prescription within 6 months of a new IV-golimumab order (index date). Longitudinal assessments of disease activity using the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) were calculated in patients continuing IV-golimumab for 6-9- and 9-12-months post-switch. Paired t-tests evaluated significance of mean improvements during the follow-up periods. Most RA patients with disease activity assessments during the 6-month follow-up (N = 100; mean age: 65.3 years; 81% female; 74% white) demonstrated moderate-to-high disease activity (CDAI: 73% [38/52]) at enrollment. On average, patients showed significant improvement in disease activity within 6-9 months of switching; mean CDAI scores improved from 21.3 to 14.1 (p < 0.0001) and were durable through 9-12 months of treatment. Real-world patients with moderate-to-high disease activity who switched from IV-infliximab to IV-golimumab demonstrated significant and sustained improvements post-switch as measured by the CDAI. Key Points • This study used real-world data from the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry to evaluate the efficacy of directly switching from intravenous (IV)-infliximab to IV-golimumab to control rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. • Most IV-infliximab patients had moderate-to-high disease activity at the time of the switch. • On average, IV-golimumab was effective in improving RA disease activity after switching from IV-infliximab as measured by the Clinical Disease Activity Index. • These data suggest that real-world RA patients with persistent symptoms despite treatment with IV-infliximab may realize improved disease control with a switch to IV-golimumab.

Pooled safety results across phase 3 randomized trials of intravenous golimumab in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) golimumab, a TNFi, is approved for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). We analyzed pooled safety results from three phase 3 IV golimumab trials in these rheumatologic diseases and hypothesized that the safety profile of IV golimumab would be similar to that established for other TNFi, including subcutaneous golimumab. METHODS: Data from three double-blind, randomized trials of IV golimumab in patients with RA, PsA, and AS, each with a placebo-controlled period and an extension of active treatment, were included. Golimumab 2 mg/kg was administered at weeks 0 and 4, then every 8 weeks through week 100 (RA) or week 52 (PsA, AS). Concomitant low-dose, oral corticosteroids were permitted. Concomitant methotrexate was required in the RA trial and permitted in the PsA and AS trials; placebo patients crossed over to golimumab at weeks 24 (RA, PsA) and 16 (AS), respectively. Adverse events (AEs), including infections, serious infections, malignancies, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), were assessed through week 112 (RA) or week 60 (PsA, AS). RESULTS: In total, 539 patients were randomized to placebo, and 740 patients were randomized to golimumab; 1248 patients received ≥ 1 golimumab administration. Among the placebo and golimumab patients, respectively, during the placebo-controlled periods, 40.6% and 50.3% had an AE, 2.4% and 3.8% had a serious AE, and 0.4% and 0.8% had a serious infection. Among all golimumab-treated patients, the numbers of events/100 patient-years (95% CI) were as follows: AEs, 175.2 (169.0, 181.6); serious AEs, 12.7 (11.0, 14.5); serious infections, 3.4 (2.5, 4.4); active tuberculosis, 0.4 (0.1, 0.8); opportunistic infection, 0.2 (0.1, 0.6); malignancies, 0.4 (0.2, 0.9), and MACE, 0.5 (0.2, 1.0). There were no cases of lymphoma. Three (0.6%) placebo-treated patients and 6 (0.5%) golimumab-treated patients died during the studies. Concomitant methotrexate was associated with increased occurrence of elevated alanine transaminase levels and lower incidence of antibodies to golimumab. During the placebo-controlled periods, serious infections in the placebo and golimumab groups were more common in patients receiving concomitant low-dose oral corticosteroids vs. those not receiving corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: IV golimumab demonstrated a safety profile that was broadly consistent across these rheumatologic indications and with other TNFi, including subcutaneous golimumab. Concomitant methotrexate or corticosteroids were associated with an increase in specific AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00973479 . Registered on September 9, 2009. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT02181673 . Registered on July 4, 2014. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , NCT02186873 . Registered on July 10, 2014.

The effect of intravenous golimumab on health-related quality of life and work productivity in adult patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: results of the phase 3 GO-ALIVE trial.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: The effect of intravenous (IV) golimumab on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and productivity in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) was evaluated. METHOD: Patients were randomized to IV golimumab 2 mg/kg (n = 105) at weeks 0, 4, then every 8 weeks (q8w) through week 52 or placebo (n = 103) at weeks 0, 4, 12, with crossover to golimumab 2 mg/kg at weeks 16, 20, then q8w through week 52. Changes from baseline in EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) index and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), daily productivity VAS, Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ), and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) were assessed. Correlations between these outcomes and disease activity and patient functioning outcomes were evaluated post hoc. RESULTS: At week 16, changes from baseline (mean ± standard deviation) in EQ-5D-5L index (0.17 ± 0.16 vs 0.05 ± 0.14), EQ-VAS (20.3 ± 24.6 vs 4.8 ± 23.5), daily productivity VAS (- 2.9 ± - 2.9 vs - 1.1 ± - 2.5), WLQ productivity loss score (- 3.5 ± - 5.3 vs - 1.9 ± - 4.0), and ASQoL (- 5.4 ± - 5.0 vs - 1.8 ± - 4.5) were greater in the IV golimumab versus placebo group, respectively. At week 28, changes from baseline were similar between the IV golimumab and placebo-crossover groups (EQ-5D-5L index: 0.18 ± 0.17 and 0.16 ± 0.16, EQ-VAS: 20.5 ± 27.9 and 22.5 ± 23.1, daily productivity VAS: - 3.1 ± - 3.0 and - 3.1 ± - 2.8, WLQ productivity loss: - 3.9 ± - 5.5 and - 4.5 ± - 4.5, and ASQoL: - 5.3 ± - 5.2 and - 5.3 ± - 4.8, respectively); improvements were maintained through week 52. HRQoL and productivity outcomes were generally moderately correlated with disease activity and functioning outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AS, IV golimumab produced sustained improvements in HRQoL and productivity through 1 year, which correlated with improvements in disease activity and functioning. ClinicalTrials.gov registry number is NCT02186873. Key Points • Intravenous (IV) golimumab resulted in clinically important improvement in general and ankylosing spondylitis-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and productivity outcomes in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as early as week 8 and maintained improvement through 1 year • Improvements in HRQoL and productivity outcomes in these patients with AS were correlated with improvements in measures of disease activity and patient functional capability • IV golimumab is an effective treatment option for AS that can help mitigate the negative effects of the disease on HRQoL and productivity.

The effect of intravenous golimumab on health-related quality of life and work productivity in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: results of the Phase 3 GO-VIBRANT trial.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and productivity following treatment with intravenous (IV) golimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Patients were randomized to IV golimumab 2 mg/kg (n=241) at Weeks 0, 4, then every 8 weeks (q8w) through Week 52 or placebo (n=239) at Weeks 0, 4, then q8w, with crossover to IV golimumab 2 mg/kg at Weeks 24, 28, then q8w through Week 52. Change from baseline in EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) index and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), daily productivity VAS, and the Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) was assessed. Relationships between these outcomes and disease activity and patient functional capability were evaluated post hoc. RESULTS: At Week 8, change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L index (0.14 vs 0.04), EQ-VAS (17.16 vs 3.69), daily productivity VAS (-2.91 vs -0.71), and WLQ productivity loss score (-2.92 vs -0.78) was greater in the golimumab group versus the placebo group, respectively. At Week 52, change from baseline was similar in the golimumab and placebo-crossover groups (EQ-5D-5L index: 0.17 and 0.15; EQ-VAS: 21.61 and 20.84; daily productivity VAS: -2.89 and -3.31; WLQ productivity loss: -4.49 and -3.28, respectively). HRQoL and productivity were generally associated with disease activity and functional capability, with continued association from Week 8 through Week 52. CONCLUSION: IV golimumab resulted in early and sustained improvements in HRQoL and productivity from Week 8 through 1 year in patients with PsA. HRQoL and productivity improvements were associated with improvements in disease activity and patient functional capability. Key Points • In patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), intravenous (IV) golimumab improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and productivity as early as 8 weeks and maintained improvement through 1 year • Improvements in HRQoL and productivity outcomes in patients with PsA treated with IV golimumab were associated with improvements in disease activity and patient functional capability outcomes • IV golimumab is an effective treatment option for PsA that can mitigate the negative effects of the disease on HRQoL and productivity.

Incidence of Infusion Reactions and Clinical Effectiveness of Intravenous Golimumab Versus Infliximab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Real-World AWARE Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate tolerability and effectiveness of golimumab-IV versus infliximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world setting. METHODS: AWARE, a prospective, real-world, pragmatic, observational, multicenter, phase 4 study, enrolled RA patients when initiating golimumab-IV or infliximab. Treatment decisions were made by the treating rheumatologist. The approved doses for RA are 2 mg/kg at weeks 0, 4, then Q8W for golimumab-IV and 3 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, then Q8W (dose escalation permitted) for infliximab. A prespecified formal interim analysis was conducted. The primary endpoint was the incidence of infusion reactions (any adverse event that occurred during or within 1 h of infusion) through week 52. Major secondary endpoints were mean change from baseline in CDAI at months 6 and 12 in biologic-naïve patients (non-inferiority margin in the CDAI = 6). Baseline characteristics were adjusted using propensity scores with inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW). RESULTS: In the formal interim analysis (golimumab-IV, n = 479; infliximab, n = 354), the incidence of infusion reactions was significantly lower with golimumab-IV vs. infliximab (3.6 vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001, IPTW-adjusted). Among biologic-naïve patients, mean changes from baseline in CDAI at month 6 (- 9.5 golimumab-IV vs. - 10.1 infliximab) and at month 12 (- 9.4 golimumab-IV vs. - 10.1 infliximab) demonstrated non-inferiority. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients with an infusion reaction was significantly lower with golimumab-IV vs. infliximab. Among biologic-naïve patients, mean change from baseline in CDAI at months 6 and 12 was non-inferior for golimumab-IV vs. infliximab. Compared with fixed-dose golimumab-IV, infliximab dose escalation did not provide any greater improvements in CDAI for patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02728934.

Evaluation of Improvement in Skin and Nail Psoriasis in Bio-naïve Patients With Active Psoriatic Arthritis Treated With Golimumab: Results Through Week 52 of the GO-VIBRANT Study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether intravenous (IV) golimumab produces improvements in skin and nail symptoms that are concomitant with improvements in quality of life (QoL) and joint symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either IV golimumab 2 mg/kg at weeks 0, 4, then every 8 weeks (q8w) through week 52 or placebo at weeks 0, 4, then q8w, with crossover to IV golimumab 2 mg/kg at weeks 24, 28, and then q8w through week 52. Assessments included Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) rheumatoid arthritis response criteria. RESULTS: Through week 24, achievement of PASI 75/90/100 responses (P ≤ .0098) and mean improvements in mNAPSI (-11.4 vs -3.7; P < .0001) and DLQI (-9.8 vs -2.9; P < .0001) were significantly greater with golimumab versus placebo. Responses were maintained in patients treated with golimumab through week 52. In placebo-crossover patients, increases in the proportion of patients achieving PASI 75/90/100 responses were observed from weeks 24 to 52, and mean improvements in mNAPSI (from -3.7 to -12.9) and DLQI (from -2.9 to -7.8) increased from weeks 24 to 52. Simultaneous achievement of PASI and DLQI responses, PASI and ACR responses, and mNAPSI and DLQI responses were also observed. Similar responses were observed for all assessments regardless of concomitant methotrexate use. CONCLUSION: Improvements in skin and nail psoriasis symptoms with IV golimumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis were concomitant with improvements in QoL and arthritis disease activity through 1 year.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of current and investigational treatments for active ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of current and investigational biologic and oral small molecule (OSM) treatments for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all phase 2/3 randomized trials of interest in patients with AS. Outcomes assessed were ≥ 20% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Criteria (ASAS20) and change from baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) at weeks 12-16. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted for outcomes using a random effects model. Baseline-risk adjustment was also conducted to account for differences in placebo response across studies. Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking curve (SUCRA) values are reported, reflecting the relative probability that intervention was the best of all interventions. RESULTS: The investigational agent tofacitinib 5 mg was the top-ranked treatment (SUCRA, 93%) for ASAS20 response, followed by intravenous (IV) golimumab 2 mg/kg (90%). Golimumab IV 2 mg/kg and infliximab 5 mg/kg were the top two ranked treatments for change from baseline in BASFI (golimumab IV, 81%; infliximab, 80%) and change from baseline in CRP (infliximab, 90%; golimumab IV, 82%). CONCLUSIONS: Two approved therapies (golimumab IV, infliximab) and one investigational product ranked highest for efficacy in AS. Key Points • Although golimumab IV, infliximab, and tofacitinib ranked highest for efficacy in AS, differences in efficacy between approved and investigational therapies were not statistically significant.

Inhibition of radiographic progression across levels of composite index-defined disease activity in patients with active psoriatic arthritis treated with intravenous golimumab: results from a phase-3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the GO-VIBRANT trial of intravenous golimumab in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), golimumab significantly inhibited radiographic progression. In post hoc analyses, we evaluated changes in total PsA-modified Sharp/van der Heijde scores (SHS) across levels of composite index-defined disease activity following treatment. METHODS: In this phase-3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 480 bio-naïve patients with active PsA randomly received intravenous golimumab 2 mg/kg (N = 241; week 0, week 4, every 8 weeks [q8w]) or placebo (N = 239; week 0, week 4, week 12, week 20) followed by golimumab (week 24, week 28, q8w) through week 52. Week 24 and week 52 SHS changes in patient subgroups, defined by levels of disease activity as assessed by several composite measures (minimal disease activity [MDA], very low disease activity [VLDA], Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score [PASDAS], Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis [DAPsA], Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), were evaluated post hoc in 474 patients with evaluable radiographic data. Partially (last-observation-carried-forward methodology) and completely (nonresponder methodology) missing data were imputed. RESULTS: Across indices, golimumab-treated patients demonstrated less radiographic progression than placebo-treated patients, regardless of disease activity state achieved via golimumab, from week 0 to 24 (e.g., mean changes in PsA-modified SHS were - 0.83 vs. 0.91, respectively, in patients achieving MDA and - 0.05 vs. 1.49, respectively, in those not achieving MDA). Treatment differences observed at week 24 persisted through week 52, despite placebo-randomized patients crossing over to golimumab at week 24 (e.g., mean changes in PsA-modified SHS from week 0 to 52 for golimumab- vs. placebo→golimumab-treated patients achieving MDA were - 1.16 vs. 1.19, respectively) and regardless of whether low disease activity was achieved (0.03 vs. 1.50, respectively, in those not achieving MDA). Consistent patterns were observed for disease activity assessed using VLDA, PASDAS, DAPsA, and CDAI composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of structural damage inhibition afforded by up to 1 year of intravenous golimumab treatment paralleled levels of PsA activity, with greater progression of structural damage observed in patients with sustained higher disease activity. Among patients not achieving low levels of disease activity across several composite indices, golimumab-randomized patients appeared to exhibit far less progression of structural damage than placebo-randomized PsA patients, illustrating a potential disconnect between responses, wherein golimumab can inhibit structural damage independent of clinical effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02181673. Registered 04 July 2014.

Propensity score matching/reweighting analysis comparing intravenous golimumab to infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis using data from the GO-ALIVE and ASSERT trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the relative efficacy of intravenous golimumab (GOL IV) and infliximab (IFX) for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Propensity score (PS) methods were used to compare the efficacy of GOL IV 2 mg/kg and IFX 5 mg/kg using individual patient data (IPD) from the active arms of the phase 3 GO-ALIVE and ASSERT studies. Outcomes included the proportion of patients with a ≥ 20% improvement in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Criteria (ASAS20), change from baseline in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) score, and change from baseline in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels from weeks 4-52. RESULTS: Before matching, 105 patients were treated with GOL IV and 201 patients were treated with IFX. After matching on all covariates, 118 patients were included in the ASAS20 analysis, 96 in the BASFI analysis, and 160 in the CRP analysis. After matching, GOL IV showed significantly greater improvement in ASAS20 response than IFX for weeks 28-44 (e.g., OR = 9.05 [95% CI 1.62-50.4] at week 44) and was comparable in change from baseline in BASFI scores and CRP levels to IFX at all time points. Results were robust for inclusion of different sets of covariates in scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first analysis of its kind to leverage clinical trial data to compare two biologics using PS methods in the treatment of active AS. Overall, GOL IV was associated with greater improvement in ASAS20 response than IFX in patients with AS at 28, 36, and 44 weeks of follow-up. Key Points • Although intravenous golimumab (GOL IV) and infliximab (IFX) are the only two IV-based tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors with demonstrated phase 3 clinical efficacy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), no study has evaluated their comparative efficacy in a head-to-head trial. • Propensity score matching was used to derive indirect treatment comparisons of GOL IV and IFX for ≥ 20% in the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society Criteria (ASAS20), change in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), and change in C-reactive protein (CRP) using individual patient data from the GO-ALIVE and ASSERT phase 3 trials. • Propensity score matched indirect comparisons showed improved relative efficacy of GOL IV compared to IFX; after matching for up to 16 baseline covariates, GOL IV was associated with significantly greater odds of ASAS20 response at weeks 28, 36, and 44 than IFX as well as equivalent changes from baseline in BASFI and CRP. • This novel application of propensity score matching using data from phase 3 trials, the first analysis of its kind in AS, allowed adjustment for important imbalances in prognostic factors between trials to generate estimates of comparative efficacy between GOL IV and IFX in the absence of a head-to-head trial between these treatments.

Prescribing Patterns of Intravenous Golimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: The use of intravenous golimumab (GLM-IV), in combination with methotrexate, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2013 for the treatment of moderate to severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). GLM-IV is available in 50-mg vials, and the prescribing information specifies a dosing regimen of 2 mg/kg at 0 and 4 weeks and then every 8 weeks thereafter. The purpose of this study was to examine the patterns of prescribing and administration of GLM-IV, including the demographic, clinical, and utilization characteristics of patients with RA newly treated with GLM-IV. METHODS: Rheumatology practices across the continental United States were solicited for a chart-review study. Inclusion criteria were: (1) diagnosis of RA; (2) current treatment with GLM-IV; (3) age ≥18 years; and (4) lack of pregnancy (in female patients). Physicians were offered a monetary incentive for each eligible chart provided. An electronic case-report form was developed to aid in the chart data extraction and included fields for demographic characteristics, available comorbid diagnoses, prior RA treatments, and doses and dates of GLM-IV administration. FINDINGS: A total of 117 eligible patient charts from 15 rheumatologist practices were reviewed. The patient sample was predominantly female (81.2%), with a mean (SD) age of 55.4 (14.5) years. A total of 55.6% of patients had evidence of biologic treatment before receiving GLM-IV, and 53% had at least 1 comorbid condition. In total, 300 individual GLM-IV infusions from this sample were reviewed. Due to the relatively recent approval of GLM-IV use by the US Food and Drug Administration, the majority of patients in this sample (69.2%) had received only between 2 and 4 infusions at the time of the review. For infusion records with valid dose data, the mean number of administered vials was 3.6 (0.8) (total dose, 180 mg); the majority of patients received a dose consistent with the prescribed dose of 2 mg/kg. Combination therapy with methotrexate was observed in the charts of a minority of patients (27.4%). The mean interval between induction and the first follow-up infusion was 32.9 (11.4) days, with a mean maintenance interval of 56.5 (13.3) days. IMPLICATIONS: This analysis provides an early glimpse of the patterns of prescribing GLM-IV. Overall, patients appeared to have been receiving GLM-IV in accordance with Food and Drug Administration labeling; although the rate of prescribing methotrexate was low, dosages and administration intervals were within the expected ranges.