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:IntroductionTo 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.MethodsAWARE 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsRA 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.ClinicaltrialsGov registration numberNCT02728934.

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundBiologic 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.MethodsAWARE, 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsMean 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT02728934 05/04/2016.

Project description:BackgroundIntravenous (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.MethodsData 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).ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsIV 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 registrationsClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00973479 . Registered on September 9, 2009.Clinicaltrialsgov , NCT02181673 . Registered on July 4, 2014.Clinicaltrialsgov , NCT02186873 . Registered on July 10, 2014.