Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is an inflammatory skin condition with an underlying inflammatory process. Due to the limited efficacy of available treatments, HS remains a therapeutic challenge. The safety and efficacy of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors, adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept, are well studied in this patient population, and in some cases, HS was unresponsive to them. In recent years, evidence has been growing regarding the application of other anti-TNFs, including certolizumab pegol (CPZ) and golimumab. We sought to evaluate the overall safety and efficacy of golimumab and CPZ in the management of HS. A comprehensive search was performed on the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Ovid Embase databases, as well as the Google Scholar search engine from initiation to 31 August 2023. A total of nine and four studies used CPZ and golimumab to treat HS, respectively. Individuals with concomitant inflammatory immune-mediated diseases, pregnant females, and patients who were refractory to previous treatments achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response following CPZ administration. Also, golimumab showed promise in treating recalcitrant HS after the failure of other treatments, such as adalimumab and anti-interleukin-1. CPZ and golimumab can be efficacious treatment options for moderate-to-severe HS, especially in patients who are unresponsive to other TNF inhibitors, such as adalimumab.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) secondary to Histoplasma capsulatum is rare, impacting <1% globally, with a mortality rate of up to 31%. Herein, we present a rare case of HLH secondary to H capsulatum, affecting a 57-year-old female with rheumatoid arthritis. Extensive investigations were unrevealing and despite broad-spectrum antibiotics, her condition worsened, leading to respiratory failure requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, shock requiring multiple vasopressors, and acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring hemodialysis. Diagnosis confirmed disseminated histoplasmosis (DHP), prompting Amphotericin B and methylprednisolone treatment, resulting in significant improvement and discharge with posaconazole therapy. Secondary HLH, primarily arising from severe infections like DHP, is discussed. Limited research exists on this condition in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seronegative individuals. Diagnosis involves HLH-2004 and HScore criteria. Managing histoplasmosis-associated HLH remains challenging due to multiorgan failure risks and treatment complexities and needs further research.

Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is a neurotoxic state which is characterized by seizures, headache, visual disturbances, paresis, and altered mental status. Golimumab is anti-tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (anti-TNF-α) that can be used in the treatment of rheumatologic diseases. Here, we present a patient who had developed PRES after golimumab treatment for ankylosing spondylitis (AS). A 45-year-old female patient was admitted to the emergency service with a newly onset severe headache, loss of vision in both eyes, and two generalized tonic-clonic seizures that lasted for 3 to 4 min. The patient had the diagnoses of AS for 12 years and hypertension for 3 years and receiving golimumab and carvedilol. The patient was diagnosed with PRES based on the current clinical and diffusion cranial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings. On suspicion of being the trigger of this situation, golimumab was stopped. After starting anti-convulsant therapy and controlling blood pressure, the neurological findings recovered rapidly and no seizures were seen. Control MRI images, in the first month\'s visit, were normal. Although chemotherapeutic agents are well-known causes of PRES, there are few reported cases with anti-TNF-α agents in the literature. To our knowledge, this is the first case that developed PRES after golimumab. Demyelinating diseases are the most frightening neurologic complication of anti-TNF-α treatment; however, PRES should come to mind in patients presenting with neurological symptoms.

UNASSIGNED: Erythema nodosum (EN) is a self-limited septal panniculitis that presents with fever, arthralgia, and arthritis. Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) inhibitor such as golimumab has been found to treat EN in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). We herein report the paradoxical occurrence of EN following golimumab for ankylosing spondylitis.
UNASSIGNED: A 34-year-old female presented in June 2022 with a complaint of \'sores\' on her feet that intermittently presented for approximately 5 months but that had worsened dramatically in the last 24 h. The patient had an 8-year history of ankylosing spondylitis for 7 years. Subcutaneous golimumab was administered every 4 weeks as she had not responded to other treatments. Twenty-four hours after the fifth subcutaneous injection, painful, erythematous nodules appeared, histologically compatible with EN. Despite this side effect, we continue therapy due to the good response and efficacy.
UNASSIGNED: Skin reactions were associated with the treatment with golimumab, including warm tender skin around the injection site, eruptions, itchiness, and sometimes a full-body rash. Golimumab was successfully used in treating EN in Crohn\'s disease. Because our patient continued on golimumab, the temporal association of EN flares with therapeutic injection and the lack of any etiology support a direct causal relationship between EN and golimumab treatment.
UNASSIGNED: TNF-α inhibitors are useful in treating Crohn\'s disease patients with EN, although it may present as an adverse effect of this treatment. Further work is needed.

Biologics have been emerging as promising therapies in ulcerative colitis (UC) patients who are refractory to conventional medical treatment. This literature review aims to appraise the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of NICE approved biological therapies, of which there are currently five licensed drugs, available for the treatment of UC in adults. An initial search was performed using National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines. A further literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Direct and Cochrane Library databases was done, resulting in a total of 62 studies being included in this review. Recent and seminal papers were included. Inclusion criteria for this review were adult participants and English papers only. In most studies, anti-tumour necrosis factor ɑ (TNFɑ) naïve patients were found to have improved clinical outcomes. Infliximab was found to be highly effective in inducing short-term clinical response, clinical remission as well as mucosal healing. However, loss of response was common and dose escalation was often required for achievement of long-term efficacy. Adalimumab was found to have both short-term and long-term efficacy which was also supported by real-world data. Golimumab was shown to have comparable efficacy and safety profiles to other biologics, although lack of therapeutic dose monitoring and loss of response is a barrier to optimising golimumab treatment efficacy. Vedolizumab was shown to have higher clinical remission rates when compared to adalimumab in a head-to-head trial, and the most cost-effective biologic when calculating quality-adjusted life years. Ustekinumab was found to significantly improve clinical remission rates in UC patients who were previously unresponsive to other biological treatments. However, as this is a newly licensed drug, there is limited literature currently available. Further, head-to-head studies are required to help determine the optimal treatment for patients with UC. With patents expiring, the development of biosimilars will help to reduce costs and increase the availability of these drugs to patients.

UNASSIGNED: In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the efficacy of golimumab (GOL) against non-infectious uveitis (NIU).
UNASSIGNED: We included eight articles in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was inflammation remission. Secondary outcomes were changes in the number of uveitis relapses/attacks, mean best-corrected visual acuity, central macular thickness, and systemic corticosteroid-sparing effects.
UNASSIGNED: In total, eight case series with 172 patients (43.6% female) were collected. Patients had 75% (95% CI: 56-87%) of remission; 42% (0.12-0.80) of patients showed improved visual acuity. The average central macular thickness decline was 38 μm (-56.51-18.54). The pooled results showed a significant decrease in the use of systemic corticosteroids.
UNASSIGNED: This study was limited by the use of non-RCT designs, limited sample sizes for outcomes, and heterogenetic underlying diseases. Our results suggest that GOL is effective against NIU. However, further evidence and analyses are required. (Funding: None; PROSPERO registration: CRD42021266214.).

BACKGROUND: The long-term use of anti-TNF-α agents can lead to adverse effects, such as infections and immune-mediated cutaneous reactions. Whether de-escalation by dose reduction or interval lengthening reduces these adverse effects is uncertain. This systematic review aims to compare the incidence of infections and skin manifestations after anti-TNF-α dose de-escalation with standard dosing.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 14 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing anti-TNF-α de-escalation strategies with standard dosing among patients with inflammatory conditions, that report on infections, skin manifestations, or both, were included. The risk of bias was assessed with the revised Cochrane risk-of bias tool (RCTs) or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (non-RCTs).
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs and six observational studies (or 2706 patients) were included. Eight RCTs had low risk of bias or some concerns. Four non-RCTs were of good methodological quality. The studies described patients with axial spondyloarthritis (8 studies, 780 patients), rheumatoid arthritis (7 studies, 1458 patients), psoriasis (3 studies, 332 patients), or inflammatory bowel disease (2 studies, 136 patients). De-escalation strategies included interval lengthening (12 studies, 1317 patients), dose reduction (6 studies, 1130 patients), or both (2 studies, 259 patients). Overall, the occurrence of infections and skin manifestations did not differ between standard treatment and de-escalation. The disappearance of infections or skin manifestations after de-escalation was only reported in two studies. The majority of studies focused on etanercept and adalimumab. Heterogeneity in reporting of infections and skin manifestations precluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: We found that anti-TNF-α de-escalation does not reduce infections or skin reactions. A de-escalation strategy should not be recommended for the sole purpose of reducing drug-related adverse effects. The meticulous documentation of adverse effects is recommended to further address this question.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42021252977.

Systemic immunosuppressants and biologicals have been a valuable tool in the treatment of inflammatory diseases and malignancies. The safety profile of these drugs has been debatable, especially in localized systems, such as the eye. This has led to the search for fairly local approaches, such as intravitreal, subconjunctival, and topical route of administration. Immunosuppressants have been used as a second-line drug in patients intolerable to corticosteroids or those who develop multiple recurrences on weaning corticosteroids. Similarly, biologicals have also been used as the next line of therapy, when adequate control of inflammation could not be attained or immunosuppressants were contraindicated to patients. Intravitreal immunosuppressants, such as methotrexate and sirolimus, have been extensively studied in noninfectious posterior uveitis, whereas limited studies have established the efficacy of intravitreal biologicals, such as infliximab and adalimumab. Most of these drugs have shown good safety profile and tolerability in animal studies alone and have not been studied further in human subjects. However, most of the studies in literature are single-case reports or case series which limits the level of evidence. In this comprehensive review, we discuss the mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, indications, efficacy, and side effects of different intravitreal immunosuppressants and biologicals that have been studied in literature.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate 6-year drug survival (median: 48.5 months) of golimumab and predictors for lack of efficacy leading to golimumab discontinuation in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine practice.
METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included 60 patients with RA treated with golimumab from November 2011 to August 2020. Patients were divided into 2 groups (retention, n = 28; withdrawal due to lack of efficacy, n = 24). The retention rate was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and variables associated with golimumab discontinuation were identified using the Cox proportional hazard model.
RESULTS: The prevalence of concomitant methotrexate and no biologics use was significantly higher in the retention than in the withdrawal group. Overall drug survival of golimumab was 66.3%, 48.3%, and 24.5% at 12, 36, and 72 months, respectively. There were statistical differences in retention rates among groups stratified by initiation dose, methotrexate, and biologics use. Multivariate analysis revealed the factor associated with golimumab discontinuation as history of 1 (hazards ratio: 4.42, 95% CI: 1.35-19.93, P = .012) and ≥2 biologics use (7.49, 1.97-36.27, P = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: Prior exposure of increasing number of biologics was identified as the most important factor negatively affecting long-term golimumab retention in Japanese patients with RA.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic autoimmune disease that primarily causes inflammation, pain and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, including tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors, but the efficacy of these drugs is hampered by the presence of anti-drug antibodies. Monitoring the response to these treatments typically involves clinical assessment using response criteria, such as Disease Activity Score in 28 joints or European League Against Rheumatism. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays can also be used to measure drug and antibody levels in the blood. These tests may inform whether or not adjustments to treatment are required or help clinicians to understand the reasons for treatment non-response or a loss of response.
Systematic reviews were conducted to identify studies reporting on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to measure drug and anti-drug antibody levels to monitor the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)] in people with rheumatoid arthritis who had either achieved treatment target (remission or low disease activity) or shown primary or secondary non-response to treatment. A range of bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), were searched from inception to November 2018. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-1 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool for non-randomised studies, with adaptations as appropriate. Threshold and cost-utility analyses that were based on a decision tree model were conducted to estimate the economic outcomes of adding therapeutic drug monitoring to standard care. The costs and resource use were considered from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. No discounting was applied to the costs and effects owing to the short-term time horizon of 18 months that was adopted in the economic analysis. The impact on the results of variations in testing and treatment strategies was explored in numerous clinically plausible sensitivity analyses.
Two studies were identified: (1) a non-randomised controlled trial, INGEBIO, that compared standard care with therapeutic drug monitoring using Promonitor® assays [Progenika Biopharma SA (a Grifols-Progenika company), Derio, Spain] in Spanish patients receiving adalimumab who had achieved remission or low disease activity; and (2) a historical control study. The economic analyses were informed by INGEBIO. Different outcomes from INGEBIO produced inconsistent results in both threshold and cost-utility analyses. The cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring varied, from the intervention being dominant to the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £164,009 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. However, when the frequency of testing was assumed to be once per year and the cost of phlebotomy appointments was excluded, therapeutic drug monitoring dominated standard care.
There is limited relevant research evidence and much uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based testing for therapeutic drug monitoring in rheumatoid arthritis patients. INGEBIO had serious limitations in relation to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence scope: only one-third of participants had rheumatoid arthritis, the analyses were mostly not by intention to treat and the follow-up was 18 months only. Moreover, the outcomes might not be generalisable to the NHS.
Based on the available evidence, no firm conclusions could be made about the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in England and Wales.
Further controlled trials are required to assess the impact of using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring the anti-tumour necrosis factors in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018105195.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Rheumatoid arthritis is a long-term condition that causes pain, swelling and stiffness in the joints. People with severe disease may be treated with drugs called tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors [adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA), etanercept (Enbrel®; Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, USA), infliximab (Remicade®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddesdon, UK), certolizumab pegol (Cimzia®; UCB Pharma Limited, Slough, UK) and golimumab (Simponi®; Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited)]. Some people taking these drugs find that their disease improves, whereas others do not respond to the treatment or improve initially and then experience loss of response. One cause of lost response is that individuals develop antibodies (i.e. protective proteins) against the drug, which hamper the effect of treatment. Various tests have been developed to measure the level of drugs and antibodies against these drugs in patient’s blood samples. This kind of monitoring would allow treatment to be adjusted in response to the test outcomes to optimise benefit for the patient, and help clinicians to better understand the reasons for an absence or a loss of response to treatment. The aim of this study was to find out whether or not it would be clinically effective (i.e. good for patients) and cost-effective (i.e. a good use of NHS resources) to use these tests for monitoring drug and antibody levels, as a means of assessing treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are controlled, have not responded or have lost response. Results from a systematic review showed that, because of the limited and poor-quality evidence, there was much uncertainty in the clinical effectiveness of testing. A simple mathematical model drew on evidence from one poorly reported study, which was heavily supplemented by data from other studies and expert advice. Results from the model were inconclusive and suggest that there is considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness of testing. Therefore, the results presented here should be considered with caution. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of tumour necrosis factor testing in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.