[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective:
To assess the longterm efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.
We randomized 444 RA patients with inadequate response to MTX (3:3:2:2) to placebo + MTX (Group 1), golimumab 100 mg + placebo (Group 2), golimumab 50 mg + MTX (Group 3), or golimumab 100 mg + MTX (Group 4). Subcutaneous golimumab/placebo was injected every 4 weeks. Patients could escape early (Group 1 added golimumab 50 mg, Group 2 added MTX, Group 3 increased golimumab to 100 mg, Group 4 continued 100 mg) based on Week 16 swollen and tender joint counts. From Week 24, Group 1 patients received golimumab 50 mg + MTX. After the Week 52 database lock, patients in the longterm extension received golimumab 50-100 mg ± MTX. Coprimary endpoints [Week 14 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20, Week 24 Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)] and Week 52 findings have been published; 2-year findings (observed data by randomized group, no imputation) are presented.
Of 444 randomized patients, 392 continued from Week 52 (Group 1: n = 116, Group 2: n = 116, Group 3: n = 84, Group 4: n = 76). Clinical improvement was maintained through Week 104; ~75% and 72% of patients randomized to golimumab 50 mg + MTX and 100 mg + MTX achieved ACR20 response, respectively. The majority [88% (105/120)] of golimumab + MTX-treated patients with Week 24 HAQ-DI improvement ≥ 0.25 maintained improved physical function through Week 104. Group 1 patients with delayed golimumab treatment exhibited more Week 104 radiographic progression (mean change score = 1.15) than golimumab + MTX-randomized patients (0.52). Incidences of serious infections were 2.24, 4.77, 5.78/100 patient-years of followup for golimumab 50 mg + MTX, 100 mg + placebo, and 100 mg + MTX, respectively.
Clinical improvement was maintained and no new safety signals were identified with 2 years of golimumab + MTX. Golimumab efficacy and safety, including serious infections, will continue to be monitored through 5 years (Clinical Trial No. NCT00264550).
The Journal of Rheumatology 05/2013; 40(7). DOI:10.3899/jrheum.120584 · 3.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective
To evaluate the impact of concomitant methotrexate (MTX) on subcutaneous (SC) abatacept immunogenicity, and to assess safety and efficacy. Methods
This phase III, open-label study had a 4-month short-term (ST) period and an ongoing long-term extension (LTE) period. Rheumatoid arthritis patients were stratified to receive SC abatacept (125 mg/week) with (combination) or without MTX (monotherapy), with no intravenous loading dose; patients receiving monotherapy could add MTX in the LTE period. Immunogenicity (percentage of anti-abatacept antibody–positive patients) was assessed. ST and LTE period data are reported, including efficacy through LTE month 14 and safety through LTE month 20. ResultsNinety-six of 100 enrolled patients completed the ST period; 3.9% (combination) and 4.1% of patients (monotherapy) developed transient immunogenicity, and no patients were antibody positive at month 4. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 3.9% (combination) and 6.1% of patients (monotherapy); 5.9% (combination) and 8.2% of patients (monotherapy) experienced SC injection reactions, and all were mild in intensity. Mean 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) changes were −1.67 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] −2.06, −1.28; combination) and −1.94 (95% CI −2.46, −1.42; monotherapy) at month 4. Ninety patients entered and were treated in the LTE period; 83.3% (75 of 90) remained ongoing at month 24. One LTE-treated patient (1.1%) developed immunogenicity, 14.4% of patients experienced SAEs, and no SC injection reactions were reported. For patients entering the LTE period, mean DAS28 changes from baseline were −1.84 (95% CI −2.23, −1.34; combination) and −2.86 (95% CI −3.46, −2.27; monotherapy) at month 18. ConclusionSC abatacept did not elicit immunogenicity associated with loss of safety or efficacy, either with or without MTX.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To evaluate persistence with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy and predictors of discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
This retrospective analysis used data from RADIUS 1, a 5-year observational registry of patients with RA, to determine time to first- and second-course discontinuation of etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab. First-course therapy was defined as first exposure to anti-TNF therapy, and second-course therapy was defined as exposure to anti-TNF therapy after the first discontinuation. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to assess persistence, log-rank tests were used to compare therapies, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess potential predictors of treatment discontinuation.
This analysis included 2418 patients. Mean persistence rates were similar among treatments [first-course: etanercept, 51%; infliximab, 48%; adalimumab, 48% (followup was 54 weeks for etanercept and infliximab and 42 weeks for adalimumab); second-course: 56%, 50%, 46%, respectively (followup was 36 weeks for etanercept and infliximab and 30 weeks for adalimumab)]. Discontinuations of first-course therapy due to ineffectiveness were similar among treatments (etanercept, 19%; infliximab, 19%; adalimumab, 20%) and discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly (p = 0.0006) lower for etanercept than for infliximab (etanercept, 14%; infliximab, 22%; adalimumab, 17%). Predictors from univariable analysis of first- or second-course therapy discontinuation included increased comorbidities (etanercept), female sex (infliximab), Clinical Disease Activity Index > 22 (infliximab), and a Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire score > 0.5 (adalimumab).
In this population, first- and second-course persistence was similar among anti-TNF therapies. First-course discontinuation due to adverse events was lower with etanercept compared with infliximab.
The Journal of Rheumatology 05/2011; 38(7):1273-81. DOI:10.3899/jrheum.101142 · 3.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: to report the rates of serious adverse events (SAE), serious infectious events (SIE), and events of medical interest (EMI) in patients receiving etanercept; to identify the risk factors for SAE, SIE, and EMI; and to report time to switching from etanercept therapy, reasons for switching, and time to restarting treatment with etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in US clinical practice.
adults ≥ 18 years of age who fulfilled the 1987 American Rheumatism Association criteria for RA were eligible for enrollment in 2 prospective, 5-year, multicenter, observational registries. RADIUS 1 (Rheumatoid Arthritis DMARD Intervention and Utilization Study) enrolled patients with RA who required a change in treatment [either an addition or a switch of a biologic or nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)]. In RADIUS 2, patients with RA were required to start etanercept therapy at entry. Patients were seen at a frequency determined by their rheumatologist. RADIUS 1 and RADIUS 2 were registered under the US National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00116714 and NCT00116727, respectively.
in these patients, SAE, SIE, and EMI occurred at rates comparable to those seen in clinical trials. No unexpected safety signals were observed. Rates for SAE, SIE, and EMI in etanercept-treated patients were comparable to rates observed in patients receiving methotrexate monotherapy and did not increase with greater exposure to etanercept therapy.
the RADIUS registries provide a better understanding of the safety of etanercept in patients with RA in the US practice setting.
The Journal of Rheumatology 10/2010; 38(1):21-8. DOI:10.3899/jrheum.100347 · 3.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of golimumab to 52 weeks in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate.
Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo plus methotrexate (group 1), golimumab 100 mg plus placebo (group 2), golimumab 50 mg plus methotrexate (group 3) and golimumab 100 mg plus methotrexate (group 4). At week 16, patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 who had less than 20% improvement in tender and swollen joints entered early escape. At week 24, patients in group 1 who had not entered early escape crossed over to 50 mg golimumab plus methotrexate.
At week 16, 31%, 27% and 17% of patients in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively, entered early escape. At week 52, 44%, 45%, 64% and 58% of patients in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, achieved 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria; and 34%, 31%, 42% and 53%, respectively, achieved low disease activity (< or = 3.2) according to the 28-joint disease activity score. Patients in group 4 appeared to have an increased risk of serious adverse events and serious infections.
The results of various outcome measures showed that the response rates achieved by patients receiving golimumab to 24 weeks were sustained to 52 weeks. The safety profile appeared to be consistent with the known safety profile of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors.
Annals of the rheumatic diseases 06/2010; 69(6):1129-35. DOI:10.1136/ard.2009.116319 · 10.38 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The phase III GO-FORWARD study examined the efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.
Patients were randomly assigned in a 3 : 3 : 2 : 2 ratio to receive placebo injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 1, n = 133), golimumab 100 mg injections plus placebo capsules (group 2, n = 133), golimumab 50 mg injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 3, n = 89), or golimumab 100 mg injections plus methotrexate capsules (group 4, n = 89). Injections were administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with 20% or greater improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 14 and the change from baseline in the health assessment questionnaire-disability index (HAQ-DI) score at week 24.
The proportion of patients who achieved an ACR20 response at week 14 was 33.1% in the placebo plus methotrexate group, 44.4% (p = 0.059) in the golimumab 100 mg plus placebo group, 55.1% (p = 0.001) in the golimumab 50 mg plus methotrexate group and 56.2% (p<0.001) in the golimumab 100 mg plus methotrexate group. At week 24, median improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were 0.13, 0.13 (p = 0.240), 0.38 (p<0.001) and 0.50 (p<0.001), respectively. During the placebo-controlled portion of the study (to week 16), serious adverse events occurred in 2.3%, 3.8%, 5.6% and 9.0% of patients and serious infections occurred in 0.8%, 0.8%, 2.2% and 5.6%, respectively.
The addition of golimumab to methotrexate in patients with active RA despite methotrexate therapy significantly reduced the signs and symptoms of RA and improved physical function.
Annals of the rheumatic diseases 06/2009; 68(6):789-96. DOI:10.1136/ard.2008.099010 · 10.38 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug (DMARD) Intervention and Utilization Study (RADIUS) is a unique, real-world, prospective, 5-year, observational study of over 10 000 patients with RA. RADIUS provides a snapshot of use patterns, effectiveness, and safety of DMARDs, biologics, and combination therapies used to manage RA in clinical practice.
Patients with RA requiring a new DMARD or biologic (addition or switch) were eligible for the RADIUS study. Two separate patient cohorts were enrolled; RADIUS 1 patients initiated any new therapy at entry, and RADIUS 2 patients initiated etanercept at entry. Patient demographics and disease activity measures were collected at study entry, and baseline characteristics were summarized for various subgroups. Effectiveness, safety, and patterns of use will be tracked for therapies utilized during the 5-year study.
RADIUS 1 enrolled 4959 patients, and RADIUS 2 enrolled 5102 patients, mostly at community private practices (88%). In RADIUS 1, most patients initiated methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, followed by MTX in combination with a biologic (e.g. infliximab plus MTX) or other DMARD. In RADIUS 2, most patients initiated etanercept in combination with MTX, followed by etanercept monotherapy. When a new therapy was required, physicians tended to add another therapy versus switching therapies. Patients initiating a biologic had a longer duration of RA and more severe disease compared with patients initiating non-biologic therapy.
These real-world data provide evidence of the prescribing practices of rheumatologists in 2001-2003. Future analyses will allow evidence-based comparisons of the long-term safety and effectiveness of DMARDs, biologics, and combination therapies to assist physicians in clinical decision-making.
Current Medical Research and Opinion 02/2006; 22(1):169-83. DOI:10.1185/030079906X80341 · 2.65 Impact Factor