Initial experience with golimumab in clinical practice for ulcerative colitis

Background: Golimumab is a TNF-blocking agent indicated as a second-line therapy in ulcerative colitis. Purpose: To research the effectiveness and safety of golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in clinical practice. Methods: Retrospective study of the effectiveness and safety of golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis. All patients received golimumab 200 mg subcutaneously at week 0, and golimumab 100 mg subcutaneously at week 2. After the induction treatment, each patient received 50 mg sc. every 4 weeks in patients with body weight less than 80 kg, and 100 mg every 4 weeks in patients with body weight greater than or equal to 80 kg. Results: Study of a group of 23 ulcerative colitis patients, 7 of whom were naive to any anti-TNF therapy, and 16 patients who had previously been treated with an anti-TNF agent other than golimumab (non-naive patients). The average treatment time with golimumab was 14.3 weeks. Globally, withdrawal of corticosteroids was observed in 74% of cases. Clinical response was observed in 85.5% of patients who had not received biological treatment previously, and in patients who had previously received biological treatment the response rate was 75%. Conclusions: In this short study, golimumab seems to be an alternative treatment in naive and non-naive anti-TNF ulcerative colitis patients. It is also a safe therapy, given that there were no adverse effects in the patients studied.

The ASAS criteria for axial spondyloarthritis: Strengths, weaknesses, and proposals for a way forward

Classification criteria should facilitate selection of similar patients for clinical and epidemiologic studies, therapeutic trials, and research on etiopathogenesis to enable comparison of results across studies from different centers. We critically appraise the validity and performance of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). It is still debatable whether all patients fulfilling these criteria should be considered as having true axSpA. Patients with radiographically evident disease by the ASAS criteria are not necessarily identical with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) as classified by the modified New York criteria. The complex multi-arm selection design of the ASAS criteria induces considerable heterogeneity among patients so classified, and applying them in settings with a low prevalence of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) greatly increases the proportion of subjects falsely classified as suffering from axial SpA. One of the unmet needs in non-radiographic form of axial SpA is to have reliable markers that can identify individuals at risk for progression to AS and thereby facilitate early intervention trials designed to prevent such progression. We suggest needed improvements of the ASAS criteria for axSpA, as all criteria sets should be regarded as dynamic concepts open to modifications or updates as our knowledge advances.

Developments in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are common conditions for which treatment options have until recently been extremely limited. Recent advances in our understanding of the immunology and genetics underlying these conditions have been rapid, and have contributed to the development of new therapies for these diseases. This article discusses the current state of the art in our understanding of the aetiopathogenesis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, and current therapies for the diseases.

Tratamiento de Artritis reumatoide con antagonistas del factor de necrosis tumoral alfa y su asociación con el desarrollo de melanoma cutáneo: revisión sistemática de la literatura y meta-análisis.

Introducción: El tratamiento con antagonistas del factor de necrosis tumoral alfa (anti TNF) ha impactado el pronóstico y la calidad de vida de los pacientes con artritis reumatoide (AR) positivamente, sin embargo, se interroga un incremento en el riesgo de desarrollar melanoma. Objetivo: Conocer la asociación entre el uso de anti TNF y el desarrollo de melanoma maligno en pacientes con AR. Metodología: Se realizó una búsqueda sistemática en MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE LIBRARY y LILACS para ensayos clínicos, estudios observacionales, revisiones y meta-análisis en pacientes adultos con diagnóstico de AR y manejo con anti TNF (Certolizumab pegol, Adalimumab, Etanercept, Infliximab y Golimumab). Resultados: 37 estudios clínicos cumplieron los criterios de inclusión para el meta-análisis, con una población de 16567 pacientes. El análisis de heterogeneidad no fue significativo (p=1), no se encontró diferencia en el riesgo entre los grupos comparados DR -0.00 (IC 95% -0.001; -0.001). Un análisis adicional de los estudios en los que se reportó al menos 1 caso de melanoma (4222 pacientes) tampoco mostró diferencia en el riesgo DR -0.00 (IC 95% -0.004 ; -0.003). Conclusión: En la evidencia disponible a la fecha no encontramos asociación significativa entre el tratamiento con anti TNF en pacientes con diagnóstico de AR y el desarrollo de melanoma cutáneo.

Systematic review and analysis of evidences on clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of biological drugs for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis

Technology: Infliximab and comparator biological such as adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab. Conditions: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) Issue: Infliximab is registered to be used in patients with AS. The aim of the Report is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab and comparator biologicals for the treatment of adult AS. Methods: Systematic literature review and analysis as well as meta-analysis (direct and indirect comparison) of published randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) were performed, all relevant health economics literature were identified ad analysed. Results: Clinical efficacy of biological therapies is based on good clinical evidences regarding to all clinical efficacy endpoints (ASAS20, ASAS40, ASAS 5/6, and BASDAI 50% response). Altogether, 22 trials are included in our meta-analysis, 12 infliximab, 3 adalimumab studies, 6 etanercept and 1 golimumab. Efficacy of biological treatments for the treatment of AS has been established by clinical scientific evidences, significant improvement at all outcomes considered was confirmed. According to the results of indirect comparison, there were no significant difference between biological treatments and placebo in terms of safety and tolerability endpoints. We found no significant difference between the clinical efficacy and safety of infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and golimumab therapies. Cost-utility analysis of adalimumab and/or infliximab, etanercept and golimumab treatment for AS were performed in the UK, Canada, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain and France. There are no cost-utility studies from Eastern Central Europe. Implications for decision making: Efficacy of infliximab and comparator biologicals for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) was proved by clinical evidence, significant improvement at all outcomes considered was confirmed. We found no significant differences in efficacy and safety of different biological treatments. Health economics results suggest that biological therapies are cost-effective alternatives for the treatment of AS in group of developed high income countries. There is a lack of health economics results in Central-Eastern European countries however these data are more and more required by governments and funders as part of the company economic dossiers.

Comparative efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab and other biological treatments in ankylosing spondylitis: systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar with other biological drugs for the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Systematic literature review for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab and infliximab-biosimilar in AS was performed and indirect meta-analysis (Bayesian mixed treatment comparison) was carried out. The proportion of patients reaching 20 % improvement by the assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS20) at weeks 12 and 24 was used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events at week 24 was applied to compare the safety of the biologicals. RESULTS: Altogether, 13 RCTs, identified by the systematic literature search, were included in the analysis. Results on the ASAS20 efficacy endpoint were reported for week 12 in 12 RCTs involving 2,395 patients, and for week 24 in 5 RCTs comprising 1,337 patients. All the five biological agents proved to be significantly superior to placebo. Infliximab showed the highest odds ratio (OR) of 7.2 (95 % CI 3.68-13.19) compared to placebo, followed by infliximab-biosimilar with OR 6.25 (95 % CI 2.55-13.14), both assessed at week 24. No significant difference was found between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological treatments regarding their efficacy and safety. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study which includes a biosimilar drug in the meta-analysis of biological treatments in AS. The results have proven the similar efficacy and safety profile of infliximab-biosimilar treatment compared to other biologicals.

Efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar compared to other biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar and other available biologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), namely abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab. METHODS: A systematic literature review of MEDLINE database until August 2013 was carried out to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method was applied for the pairwise comparison of treatments. Improvement rates by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR50) at week 24 were used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events was considered to assess the safety of the biologicals. RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. All the biological agents proved to be superior to placebo. For ACR20 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest odds ratio (OR) compared to placebo, OR 7.69 [95 % CI 3.69-14.26], followed by abatacept OR 3.7 [95 % CI 2.17-6.06], tocilizumab OR 3.69 [95 % CI 1.87-6.62] and infliximab-biosimilar OR 3.47 [95 % CI 0.85-9.7]. For ACR50 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest OR compared to placebo OR 8.46 [3.74-16.82], followed by tocilizumab OR 5.57 [95 % CI 2.77-10.09], and infliximab-biosimilar OR 4.06 [95 % CI 1.01-11.54]. Regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events, the results show no statistically significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and placebo, OR 1.87 [95 % CI 0.74-3.84]. No significant difference regarding efficacy and safety was found between infliximab-biosimilar and the other biological treatments. CONCLUSION: This is the first indirect meta-analysis in RA that compares the efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab to the other biologicals indicated in RA. We found no significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological agents in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.