BACKGROUND:

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is the most common form of inflammatory bowel disease in the UK. UC can have a considerable impact on patients' quality of life. The burden for the NHS is substantial.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of interventions, to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of all interventions and comparators (including medical and surgical options), to estimate the expected net budget impact of each intervention, and to identify key research priorities.

DATA SOURCES:

Peer-reviewed publications, European Public Assessment Reports and manufacturers' submissions. The following databases were searched from inception to December 2013 for clinical effectiveness searches and from inception to January 2014 for cost-effectiveness searches for published and unpublished research evidence: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment database and NHS Economic Evaluation Database; ISI Web of Science, including Science Citation Index, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Bioscience Information Service Previews. The US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website were also searched, as were research registers, conference proceedings and key journals.

REVIEW METHODS:

A systematic review [including network meta-analysis (NMA)] was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of named interventions. The health economic analysis included a review of published economic evaluations and the development of a de novo model.

RESULTS:

Ten randomised controlled trials were included in the systematic review. The trials suggest that adult patients receiving infliximab (IFX) [Remicade(®), Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (MSD)], adalimumab (ADA) (Humira(®), AbbVie) or golimumab (GOL) (Simponi(®), MSD) were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving placebo (PBO). Hospitalisation data were limited, but suggested more favourable outcomes for ADA- and IFX-treated patients. Data on the use of surgical intervention were sparse, with a potential benefit for intervention-treated patients. Data were available from one trial to support the use of IFX in paediatric patients. Safety issues identified included serious infections, malignancies and administration site reactions. Based on the NMA, in the induction phase, all biological treatments were associated with statistically significant beneficial effects relative to PBO, with the greatest effect associated with IFX. For patients in response following induction, all treatments except ADA and GOL 100 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although these were not significant. The greatest effects at 8-32 and 32-52 weeks were associated with 100 mg of GOL and 5 mg/kg of IFX, respectively. For patients in remission following induction, all treatments except ADA at 8-32 weeks and GOL 50 mg at 32-52 weeks were associated with beneficial effects when compared with PBO, although only the effect of ADA at 32-52 weeks was significant. The greatest effects were associated with GOL (at 8-32 weeks) and ADA (at 32-52 weeks). The economic analysis suggests that colectomy is expected to dominate drug therapies, but for some patients, colectomy may not be considered acceptable. In circumstances in which only drug options are considered, IFX and GOL are expected to be ruled out because of dominance, while the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ADA versus conventional treatment is approximately £50,300 per QALY gained.

LIMITATIONS:

The health economic model is subject to several limitations: uncertainty associated with extrapolating trial data over a lifetime horizon, the model does not consider explicit sequential pathways of non-biological treatments, and evidence relating to complications of colectomy was identified through consideration of approaches used within previous models rather than a full systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS:

Adult patients receiving IFX, ADA or GOL were more likely to achieve clinical response and remission than those receiving PBO. Further data are required to conclusively demonstrate the effect of interventions on hospitalisation and surgical outcomes. The economic analysis indicates that colectomy is expected to dominate medical treatments for moderate to severe UC.

STUDY REGISTRATION:

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006883.

FUNDING:

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objective: The phase III GO-FORWARD study examined the efficacy and safety of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Objective. To assess the safety and efficacy of golimumab in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. MTX-naive patients with RA (n = 637) were randomized to receive placebo plus MTX (group 1), golimumab 100 mg plus placebo (group 2), golimumab 50 mg plus MTX (group 3), or golimumab 100 mg plus MTX (group 4). Subcutaneous injections of golimumab or placebo were administered every 4 weeks. The dosage of MTX/placebo capsules started at 10 mg/week and escalated to 20 mg/week. The primary end point, the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR50 response) at week 24, required significant differences between groups 3 and 4 combined (combined group) versus group 1 and significant differences in a pairwise comparison (group 3 or group 4 versus group 1). Results. An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the ACR50 response at week 24 did not show a significant difference between the combined group and group 1 (38.4% and 29.4%, respectively; P = 0.053), while a post hoc modified ITT analysis (excluding 3 untreated patients) of the ACR50 response showed statistically significant differences between the combined group and group 1 (38.5% versus 29.4%; P = 0.049) and between group 3 (40.5%; P = 0.038) but not group 4 (36.5%; P = 0.177) and group 1. Group 2 was noninferior to group 1 for the ACR50 response at week 24 (33.1%; 95% confidence interval lower bound -5.2%; predefined delta value for noninferiority -10%). The combination of golimumab plus MTX demonstrated a significantly better response compared with placebo plus MTX in most other efficacy parameters, including response/remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Serious adverse events occurred in 7%, 3%, 6%, and 6% of patients in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Conclusion. Although the primary end point was not met, the modified ITT analysis of the primary end point and other prespecified efficacy measures demonstrated that the efficacy of golimumab plus MTX is better than, and the efficacy of golimumab alone is similar to, the efficacy of MTX alone in reducing RA signs and symptoms in MTX-naive patients, with no unexpected safety concerns. © 2009, American College of Rheumatology.

Golimumab is a fully human antitumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) monoclonal antibody that is being developed for intravenous and subcutaneous administration. To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of the intravenous formulation of golimumab, 36 adult subjects with rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive a single infusion of placebo or golimumab (0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 6, or 10 mg/kg). Serum concentrations of golimumab were determined using a validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. In addition to the noncompartmental analysis and compartmental modeling, a population pharmacokinetics analysis using NONMEM was also conducted. Both the maximum serum concentration and the area under the serum concentrationtime curve appeared to increase in a dose-proportional manner. The median half-life ranged from 7 to 20 days. A 2-compartment population pharmacokinetic model adequately described the pharmacokinetics of golimumab. The following pharmacokinetic parameters (typical value [% coefficient of variation]) were estimated from the population pharmacokinetic model: clearance (CL= 0.40 [10.1%] L/d), volume of distribution in the central compartment (V(c): 3.07 [6.4%] L), intercompartmental clearance (Q: 0.42 [15.5%] L/d), and volume of distribution in the peripheral compartment (V(p): 3.68 [11.8%] L). Interindividual variability of the pharmacokinetic parameters was quantified for CL (44.3%), V(c) (25.5%), Q (44.6%), and V(p) (44.6%). Residual variability was estimated to be 15.0%. Body weight was found to be an important covariate on V(c). Golimumab was generally well tolerated. The pharmacokinetics of golimumab appeared to be linear over the dose range evaluated in this study.

BACKGROUND:

Golimumab (GOL) is a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor that is used for various types of inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). This article is a systematic review of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of golimumab in inflammatory arthritides, specifically RA, PsA and AS.

METHODS:

We conducted a search of randomized controlled trails in MEDLINE [PubMed], CENTRAL, Embase, and Current Controlled Trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov) through 2017 for studies that evaluated golimumab in inflammatory arthritides. We focused on pivotal, phase III trials for this review of the safety and efficacy of the drug. However, as some important information is not available in detail in publications from the phase III studies, additional individual studies pertaining to antidrug antibodies were also included.

RESULTS:

A total of 12, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were included in this review of literature. Two trials focused on the GOL response in the PsA population, four trials focused on the GOL response in the AS population, and five trials focused on the GOL response in the RA population. Additional studies that evaluated autodrug antibodies produced in patients using GOL were also included.

CONCLUSION:

Golimumab was found to be clinically effective and also have a good safety profile in the treatment of RA, PsA, and AS based on data available from large studies.

Background: Golimumab (GOL) is a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor that is used for various types of inflammatory arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). This article is a systematic review of the evidence for the efficacy and safety of golimumab in inflammatory arthritides, specifically RA, PsA and AS. Methods: We conducted a search of randomized controlled trails in MEDLINE [PubMed], CENTRAL, Embase, and Current Controlled Trials databases (ClinicalTrials.gov) through 2017 for studies that evaluated golimumab in inflammatory arthritides. We focused on pivotal, phase III trials for this review of the safety and efficacy of the drug. However, as some important information is not available in detail in publications from the phase III studies, additional individual studies pertaining to antidrug antibodies were also included. Results: A total of 12, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were included in this review of literature. Two trials focused on the GOL response in the PsA population, four trials focused on the GOL response in the AS population, and five trials focused on the GOL response in the RA population. Additional studies that evaluated autodrug antibodies produced in patients using GOL were also included. Conclusion: Golimumab was found to be clinically effective and also have a good safety profile in the treatment of RA, PsA, and AS based on data available from large studies.

Este artículo no tiene resumen

The purpose of this study is to determine if non-adherence to Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) drugs in participants treated with biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is associated with a greater incidence of disease in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess longer-term outcomes, including enthesitis and dactylitis, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), in a study of golimumab treatment.

METHODS:

Adult patients with active PsA were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 113), golimumab 50 mg (n = 146), or golimumab 100 mg (n = 146) every 4 weeks through Week 20. All patients received golimumab 50 mg or 100 mg from Week 24 onward. Entheses tenderness was scored in 15 body sites using the PsA-modified Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES). Dactylitis was assessed in 20 digits of the hands and feet.

RESULTS:

Among the 405 randomized patients, 77% presented with enthesitis and 34% dactylitis at baseline. At Week 24 of the placebo-controlled study phase, significant differences were observed between golimumab 50 mg and/or 100 mg and placebo for mean percent improvement in the PsA-modified MASES [46% (p < 0.001) and 52% (p < 0.001) vs 13%, respectively] and the dactylitis score [66% (p = 0.09) and 82% (p < 0.001) vs 28%, respectively]. By Week 52, improvements were maintained among patients randomized to receive golimumab (mean improvements of 54% for PsA-modified MASES and 77% for the dactylitis score). Those given placebo who had enthesitis or dactylitis at baseline and who crossed over to golimumab at Week 16 or 24 had somewhat less improvement at Week 52 (i.e., 39% for the PsA-modified MASES, 57% for dactylitis score).

CONCLUSION:

Treatment of PsA patients with the TNF inhibitor golimumab was effective across all components of disease, including enthesitis and dactylitis, and efficacy was maintained over longer-term followup.

Objectives: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX). Data sources: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs. Methods: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX. Conclusions: bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).