Guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy versus guselkumab or golimumab monotherapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (VEGA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the introduction of new monoclonal antibodies and oral therapies for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, clinical remission rates remain low, underscoring the need for innovative treatment approaches. We assessed whether guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy was more effective for ulcerative colitis than either monotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept trial at 54 hospitals, academic medical centres, or private practices in nine countries. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 to 65 years) had a confirmed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis at least 3 months before screening and moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo score 6-12) with a centrally-read baseline endoscopy subscore of 2 or higher. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to combination therapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0, subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab monotherapy 100 mg every 8 weeks for 32 weeks), golimumab monotherapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0 followed by subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at week 2 and every 4 weeks thereafter for 34 weeks), or guselkumab monotherapy (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks thereafter for 32 weeks). The primary endpoint was clinical response at week 12 (defined as a ≥30% decrease from baseline in the full Mayo score and a ≥3 points absolute reduction with either a decrease in rectal bleeding score of ≥1 point or a rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1). Efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population up to week 38, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one (partial or complete) study intervention dose. Safety was analysed up to week 50, according to study intervention received among all patients who received at least one (partial or complete) dose of study intervention. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662542. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Nov 15, 2021, 358 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 214 patients were randomly assigned to combination therapy (n=71), golimumab monotherapy (n=72), or guselkumab monotherapy (n=71). Of the 214 patients included, 98 (46%) were women and 116 (54%) were men and the mean age was 38·4 years (SD 12·0). At week 12, 59 (83%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group had achieved clinical response compared with 44 (61%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 22·1% [80% CI 12·9 to 31·3]; nominal p=0·0032) and 53 (75%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 8·5% [-0·2 to 17·1; nominal p=0·2155). At week 50, 45 (63%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group, 55 (76%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group, and 46 (65%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group had reported at least one adverse event. The most common adverse events were ulcerative colitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, anaemia, nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, and pyrexia. No deaths, malignancies, or cases of tuberculosis were reported during the combination induction period. One case of tuberculosis was reported in the combination therapy group and one case of colon adenocarcinoma was reported in the guselkumab monotherapy group; both occurred after week 12. Two deaths were reported after the final dose of study intervention (poisoning in the combination therapy group and COVID-19 in the guselkumab monotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Data from this proof-of-concept study suggest that combination therapy with guselkumab and golimumab might be more effective for ulcerative colitis than therapy with either drug alone. These findings require confirmation in larger trials. FUNDING: Janssen Research and Development.

The Effect of Guselkumab Induction Therapy in Patients With Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis: QUASAR Phase 2b Induction Results at Week 12 by Prior Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Advanced Therapy

Introduction: QUASAR (NCT04033445) is a phase 2b randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that evaluates guselkumab (GUS), an interleukin-23 p19 subunit antagonist, as induction treatment in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) who had an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional (ie, thiopurines or corticosteroids) or advanced therapy (ADT;ie, tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonists, vedolizumab, or tofacitinib). Conclusion: Treatment with GUS resulted in greater improvements compared with placebo across key clinical and endoscopic/histologic outcome measures at Week 12 in patients with moderately to severely active UC with or without a history of inadequate response/intolerance to ADT. Efficacy at Week 12 by prior response/intolerance to ADT Placebo IV (N=105) GUS 200 mg IV (N=101) GUS 400 mg IV (N=107) GUS Combined(N=208) Patients with a history of inadequate response/intolerance to ADT 51 46 51 97  Clinical response a1,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 25.5% (14.3, 39.6) 54.3%* (39.0, 69.1) 47.1%* (32.9, 61.5) 50.5%* (40.2, 60.8)  Clinical remission a2,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 7.8% (2.2, 18.9) 17.4% (7.8, 31.4) 17.6% (8.4, 30.9) 17.5% (10.6, 26.6)  Symptomatic remission a3,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 17.6% (8.4, 30.9) 39.1%* (25.1, 54.6) 37.3%* (24.1, 51.9) 38.1%* (28.5, 48.6)  Endoscopic improvement a4,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 9.8% (3.3, 21.4) 23.9% (12.6, 38.8) 21.6% (11.3, 35.3) 22.7% (14.8, 32.3)  Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement a5,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 5.9% (1.2, 16.2) 13.0% (4.9, 26.3) 19.6%* (9.8, 33.1) 16.5% (9.7, 25.4)  Endoscopic normalization a6,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 5.9% (1.2, 16.2) 10.9% (3.6, 23.6) 5.9% (1.2, 16.2) 8.2% (3.6, 15.6) Patents with no history of inadequate response/intolerance to ADT 54 55 56 111  Clinical response a1,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 29.6% (18.0, 43.6) 67.3%** (53.3, 79.3) 73.2%** (59.7, 84.2) 70.3%** (60.9, 78.6)  Clinical remission a2,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 11.1% (4.2, 22.6) 32.7%* (20.7, 46.7) 32.1%* (20.3, 46.0) 32.4%* (23.9, 42.0)  Symptomatic remission a3,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 22.2% (12.0, 35.6) 58.2%** (44.1, 71.3) 57.1%** (43.2, 70.3) 57.7%** (47.9, 67.0)  Endoscopic improvement a4,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 14.8% (6.6, 27.1) 36.4%* (23.8, 50.4) 39.3%* (26.5, 53.2) 37.8%* (28.8, 47.5)  Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement a5,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 11.1% (4.2, 22.6) 27.3%* (16.1, 41.0) 33.9%* (21.8, 47.8) 30.6%* (22.2, 40.1)  Endoscopic normalization a6,b,c,d,e (95% CI) 7.4% (2.1, 17.9) 23.6%* (13.2, 37.0) 21.4%* (11.6, 34.4) 22.5%* (15.1, 31.4) * Nominal p-value < 0.05. ** Nominal p-value < 0.001. a1 Clinical response is defined as decrease from induction baseline in the modified Mayo score by ≥30% and ≥2 points, with either a ≥1-point decrease from baseline in the rectal bleeding subscore or a rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. a2 Clinical remission is defined as stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 with no increase from induction baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. a3 Symptomatic remission is defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1 with no increase from induction baseline and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. a4 Endoscopic improvement is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. a5 Histo-endoscopic mucosal improvement is defined as achieving a combination of histologic improvement (neutrophil infiltration in < 5% of crypts, no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system) and endoscopic improvement, a6 Endoscopic normalization is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0. b Patients who had a prohibited change in UC medication, an ostomy or colectomy, or discontinued study agent due to lack of efficacy or an adverse event of worsening of UC prior to the Week 12 visit were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. c Data after discontinuation of study agent due to COVID-19 related reasons (excluding COVID-19 infection) were considered to be missing. d Patients who were issing one or more components pertaining to a specified endpoint at Week 12 were considered not to have achieved the endpoint. e The p-values were based on the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) chi-square test.

Induction Combination Therapy With Guselkumab and Golimumab Followed by Guselkumab Monotherapy Maintenance: Results of the Phase 2a, Randomized, Double-Blind, Proof-of-Concept VEGA Study

GUS Clinical remission c,d 16 (22.2) 22 (31.0) 31 (43.7) 21.5 (11.9, 31.2) 0.006 12.7 (2.7, 22.7) 0.109 Clinical remission (based on mMayo) c,e 15 (20.8) 22 (31.0) 34 (47.9) 27.1 (17.7, 36.6) < 0.001 16.9 (7.0, 26.8) 0.033 Symptomatic remission c,f 43 (59.7) 49 (69.0) 49 (69.0) 9.4 (-0.6, 19.4) 0.238 0.0 (-9.7, 9.7) 1.000 Endoscopic improvementc.g 16 (22.2) 23 (32.4) 35 (49.3) 27.2 (17.6, 36.7) < 0.001 16.9 (7.0, 26.8) 0.033 Endoscopic normalization c,h 5 (6.9) 11 (15.5) 18 (25.4) 18.5 (11.1, 25.9) 0.002 9.9 (1.6, 18.2) 0.134 Histologic remission c,i 18 (25.0) 29 (40.8) 36 (50.7) 25.8 (16.1, 35.5) 0.001 9.9 (-0.4, 20.1) 0.224 Both histologic remission and endoscopic improvement c,g,i 10 (13.9) 15 (21.1) 30 (42.3) 28.5 (19.6, 37.4) < 0.001 21.1 (11.8, 30.5) 0.005 Both histologic remission and endoscopic normalization c,h,i 4 (5.6) 9 (12.7) 17 (23.9) 18.5 (11.3, 25.6) 0.002 11.3 (3.3, 19.2) 0.074 a The adjusted treatment difference between the combination therapy vs. the monotherapy groups and the confidence interval were based on the Wald statistic with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) weight. b The p-value was based on the 2-sided CMH chi-square test, stratified by corticosteroid use at baseline (Yes, No). All P-values are nominal. c Pts who had an ostomy or colectomy, had a protocol-prohibited change in concomitant UC medications, or discontinued study intervention due to lack of a therapeutic effect or an adverse event of worsening UC, or discontinued study agent early due to COVID-19 related reasons (excluding COVID-19 infection) prior to the wk 38 visit were considered to not have achieved the binary endpoints. Pts with missing data at wk 38 were considered to not have achieved the binary endpoints. d Clinical remission is defined as Mayo score ≤2, with no individual subscore >1. e Clinical remission (based on the mMayo) is defined as a stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1, where the stool frequency subscore has not increased from baseline, a rectal bleeding subscore of 0, and an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on endoscopy. f Symptomatic remission is defined as Mayo stool frequency subscore of 0 or 1, where the stool frequency subscore has not increased from baseline, and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0. g Endoscopic improvement is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0 or 1 with no friability present on the endoscopy. h Endoscopic normalization is defined as an endoscopy subscore of 0. i Histologic remission is defined as absence of neutrophils from the mucosa (both lamina propria and epithelium), no crypt destruction, and no erosions, ulcerations or granulation tissue according to the Geboes grading system.