Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Curtis JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572298 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose:The objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare treatment patterns and infusion-related health care resource expenditures for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating golimumab for intravenous use (GLM-IV) and infliximab (IFX) therapy and to assess cost implications from the commercial perspective. Methods:Adult RA patients with a new episode of GLM-IV or IFX treatment between Janu-ary 1, 2014 and March 31, 2016 were identified from MarketScan databases and evaluated for maintenance infusion intervals and related costs of treatment. IFX and GLM-IV patients were matched 1:1 on index medication treatment duration, gender, payer type, prior biologic use, and post-index methotrexate use. Paid amounts for drugs and associated administration costs were applied to treatment group dosing patterns. Results:Final matched treatment groups included 547 GLM-IV and 547 IFX patients (mean age = 55-56 years). Mean (SD) follow-up was 609 (161) days for GLM-IV and 613 (163) days for IFX. Treatment duration was 396 (240) days for GLM-IV and 397 (239) days for IFX. Overall, 80% of GLM-IV and 39% of IFX maintenance infusions were given approximately every 8 weeks; and 6% of GLM-IV and 53% of IFX maintenance infusions occurred more frequently than every 8 weeks (P<0.001). When weighting of the maintenance infusion interval was applied, the mean number of induction plus maintenance infusions during the first year of treatment was estimated at 7.03 for GLM-IV and 9.48 for IFX. From the commercial perspective, drug plus administration costs per infusion were $5,846 for GLM-IV and $5,444 for IFX with total annual cost of therapy for GLM-IV patients costing $10,507 less than that for IFX patients in the first year and $6,774 less than that for IFX patients in subsequent years. Conclusion:Annual GLM-IV drug plus administration costs for commercial health plans were significantly less than IFX in RA patients due to differences in real-world dosing and administration.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Golimumab has been proven as an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical trials. However, there is a scarcity of data regarding its use in elderly patients in a real-world setting. This study aims to evaluate the safety, effectiveness, and treatment persistence of golimumab in elderly Japanese patients (? 75 years) with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS:This study was a post hoc analysis of post-marketing surveillance data on 5137 Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who received golimumab for 24 weeks. The study population was divided into two age groups (younger: < 75 years and elderly: ? 75 years), and the safety, effectiveness, and treatment persistence of golimumab were assessed. Also, the reasons for discontinuing golimumab treatment were analyzed by multi-logistic regression. RESULTS:During golimumab treatment over 24 weeks, younger and elderly groups exhibited comparable improvement of disease activity as measured by EULAR response criteria with similar overall rates of adverse events. However, the survival curve of golimumab for elderly patients was significantly different from that for younger patients due largely to the discontinuation at 4 weeks. The most common reason for discontinuation in elderly patients was patient choice, while it was disease progression in younger patients. Analysis of elderly patients who discontinued treatment by their own decision identified EULAR good response as a factor associated with continuation of golimumab treatment whereas no predictive factor associated with discontinuation was identified. CONCLUSIONS:The safety and effectiveness of golimumab treatment in elderly Japanese patients aged 75 years or older were comparable to those in younger patients in real-world clinical practice. Analysis of the survival curves suggested that continuous use of golimumab might further improve clinical benefit of golimumab in elderly patients, underpinning the importance of effective communication between physicians and elderly patients based on the treat-to-target strategy. FUNDING:Janssen Pharmaceutical K.K. and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous golimumab + methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged <?65?years and those ??65?years who were enrolled in the GO-FURTHER study. METHODS:In the phase III, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled GO-FURTHER trial, patients with active RA were randomized to intravenous (IV) golimumab 2?mg/kg + MTX or placebo + MTX at weeks 0 and 4, then every 8?weeks thereafter (with crossover to golimumab at week 16 [early escape] or week 24 [per-protocol]). The final golimumab infusion was at week 100. Assessments included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria. Efficacy and adverse events (AEs) were monitored through 2 years. Efficacy and AEs were summarized for patients aged <?65?years or ??65?years; AEs were also summarized for patients < or ??70?years and patients < or ??75?years. RESULTS:In GO-FURTHER, 592 patients were randomized to receive placebo (n?=?197) or golimumab (n?=?395), 515 were aged <?65?years and 77 were ??65?years. At week 24, ACR20 response rates were greater for golimumab + MTX patients compared with placebo + MTX for patients <?65?years (61.6% vs 31.3%, p?<?0.001) and those ??65?years (69.5% vs 33.3%; p?<?0.01). Infections were the most common AE through week 112 (51.6% in patients <?65?years; 55.3% in patients ??65?years); upper respiratory infections were the most common infection in patients <?65?years (13.2%) and those ??65?years (11.8%). Serious AEs occurred in 17.7% in patients <?65?years and 25.0% of patients ??65?years and included malignancies, pneumonia, fractures, acute pancreatitis, cellulitis, and bacterial arthritis. CONCLUSIONS:In GO-FURTHER, ACR response rates were similar between patients <?65?years and patients ??65?years within each treatment group. AEs in elderly patients were similar to the known safety profile of IV golimumab. Immunosenescence is known to increase the risk of infections in the elderly. Elderly patients had a numerically higher incidence of serious infections. Six malignancies occurred in golimumab-treated patients, all in patients <?65?years. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00973479 . Registered September 9, 2009.