The PATCH trial: 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster for trigeminal neuralgia-Results of a multicentric, enriched enrollment, randomized withdrawal, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy and safety of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster (LMP) in patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN). BACKGROUND: TN is an excruciatingly painful type of neuropathic facial pain. Anti-epileptics are the first-line treatment for TN; however, these oral drugs alone sometimes fail to achieve satisfactory analgesic effects. Two retrospective studies have shown that LMP can be an effective and safe treatment option for some patients with TN. No other high-quality clinical studies have explored the effect and safety of LMP in patients with TN. METHODS: The PATCH trial is an enriched enrollment with randomized withdrawal, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group trial performed at five study centers. Eligible patients with TN received LMP during a 3-week initial open-label phase. Patients who met the response criteria entered the double-blind treatment phase and were randomly assigned for treatment with either LMP (LMP group) or vehicle patches (control group) at a 1:1 ratio. Patients who met the criteria for treatment failure were withdrawn from the double-blind treatment phase, and treatment was continued in the remaining patients for up to 28 days. The primary outcome was the number of treatment failures. The secondary endpoints were the time to loss of therapeutic response (LTR) in the double-blind phase and the weekly mean pain severity in both the open-label phase and the double-blind phase of the study. RESULTS: The first patient was enrolled in this study on May 1, 2021, and the enrollment of the last patient was completed on August 26, 2022. A total of 307 patients were initially screened, 226 (74.0%) of whom entered the open-label phase. Of the 226 respondents, 124 (55.0%) were randomized to the double-blind phase. In the double-blind phase, 62 patients were assigned to the LMP group, and 62 were assigned to the control group. For the primary endpoint, 16 (26.0%) patients with LMP and 36 (58.0%) patients with vehicle patches met the treatment failure criteria during the double-blind phase (relative risk, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The survival curve of the LTR showed that the LTR of LMP was significantly longer than that of the vehicle patches (hazard ratio, 0.275; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.50; log-rank p < 0.001). LMP also significantly reduced the weekly mean pain severity in the double-blind phase of the study (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: LMP produced partial relief of pain symptoms in some patients with TN. For responders, LMP may be used as an add-on therapy in a multidrug treatment protocol.

LIBERTY randomized withdrawal study: relugolix combination therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids.

BACKGROUND: In the pivotal LIBERTY 1 and 2 trials and long-term extension study, once-daily relugolix combination therapy (40 mg relugolix, 1 mg estradiol, 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate) reduced menstrual blood loss volume and pain among women with uterine fibroids. Relugolix combination therapy was well tolerated with preservation of bone mineral density through 52 weeks. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report the 2-year relugolix combination therapy efficacy and safety results of the phase 3 LIBERTY randomized withdrawal study. STUDY DESIGN: Women with uterine fibroid-associated heavy menstrual bleeding who completed the 24-week LIBERTY 1 or 2 trials, followed by the 28-week long-term extension study (up to 52 weeks total treatment), and who met the responder criteria (menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL and ≥50% reduction from pivotal study baseline at week 48 [week 24 of long-term extension]) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either blinded treatment with relugolix combination therapy or placebo for 52 weeks (total treatment period, 104 weeks). For women who had a relapse of heavy menstrual bleeding during the study (menstrual blood loss volume ≥80 mL), open-label relugolix combination therapy was offered. The primary endpoint was the proportion of women who maintained menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL through week 76 (week 24 of randomized withdrawal study). Secondary endpoints included time to menstrual blood loss volume ≥80 mL, proportion of women who maintained a menstrual blood loss volume of <80 mL through week 104 (over the 52-week randomized treatment period), the proportion of women who achieved or maintained amenorrhea at week 76 at the end of treatment, and the change in Uterine Fibroid Symptom-Quality of Life Bleeding and Pelvic Discomfort Scale and symptom severity scores. Analyses were performed for the modified intent-to-treat population, including all randomized women who received ≥1 dose of the study drug. RESULTS: Of the 229 randomized women (relugolix combination therapy, n=115; placebo, n=114), 228 received the study drug and 175 (76.7%) completed the randomized withdrawal study. Through week 76, 78.4% of women on relugolix combination therapy maintained menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL vs 15.1% in the placebo group (difference, 63.4%; 95% confidence interval, 52.9%-73.9%; P<.0001). At week 104, 69.8% of women on relugolix combination therapy maintained menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL vs 11.8% in the placebo group (difference, 58.0%; 95% confidence interval, 47.0%-69.1%; P<.0001). Through week 104, 88.3% of women on placebo relapsed with heavy menstrual bleeding (median time to relapse, 5.9 weeks). Among the 89 women in the placebo group who relapsed and received open-label rescue treatment, 87 women responded to relugolix combination therapy with a menstrual blood loss volume <80 mL. The proportion of women who achieved or maintained amenorrhea were 57.4% vs 13.3% at week 76 (difference, 44.1%; 95% confidence interval, 33.10%-55.1%; P<.0001) and 58.3% vs 10.6% at week 104 (difference, 47.6%; 95% confidence interval, 37.0%-58.3%; nominal P<.0001) for relugolix combination therapy and the placebo group, respectively. Relugolix combination therapy was generally well tolerated; no new safety signals were identified, and the adverse event profile over the second year was consistent with that reported through the first year of treatment. Bone mineral density remained stable in women who received relugolix combination therapy from week 52 to week 104. In women continuously treated with relugolix combination therapy up to 2 years, bone mineral density was generally preserved. CONCLUSION: After 2 years of treatment with relugolix combination therapy, there was evidence of durability of the effect in maintaining low menstrual blood loss volume in women with symptomatic uterine fibroids. Most women had return of heavy menstrual bleeding and associated symptoms after treatment cessation, which improved upon retreatment with relugolix combination therapy. Relugolix combination therapy was well tolerated, the adverse event profile remained consistent, and the mean bone mineral density was generally preserved through 2 years of treatment.

Efficacy and tolerability of brivaracetam monotherapy in childhood and juvenile absence epilepsy: An innovative adaptive trial design.

OBJECTIVE: Despite introduction of several antiseizure medications over the past two decades, treatment options for childhood absence epilepsy (CAE) and juvenile absence epilepsy (JAE) remain limited. We report the innovative adaptive design of an ongoing phase 2/3 trial to evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV) monotherapy in patients 2-25 years of age with CAE or JAE. METHODS: N01269 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04666610; start: July 2021; expected completion: 2024) is a randomized, dose-finding and confirmatory, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial. The trial consists of a dose-selection and assessment for futility stage, followed by an optimal-dose stage after interim analysis. Both stages include an up to 2-week screening period, a 2-week placebo-controlled period, and an 11-week active treatment period (10 weeks of initial treatment followed by a 24-hour electroencephalogram [EEG] and an additional week of active treatment for 24-hour EEG assessment). Patients who are absence seizure-free will enter an up to 4-week randomized withdrawal period. Efficacy assessments will be based on 24-hour EEG and seizure diaries. SIGNIFICANCE: This two-stage adaptive trial design allows investigation of two potentially efficacious BRV doses, where one dose is dropped in favor of the other dose with a better benefit-risk profile. This allows for a combined phase 2 dose-finding and phase 3 confirmatory efficacy trial, which reduces the number of patients needed to be recruited and reduces trial duration. A randomized withdrawal period is included to evaluate sustainability of treatment effect over time and to allow for placebo control while minimizing placebo exposure. Use of EEG capture in addition to seizure diaries offers a robust mechanism of detecting seizure activity and measuring treatment effect. Positive efficacy and safety/tolerability data may support the use of BRV as monotherapy for CAE or JAE, providing another treatment option and representing long-delayed progress in the treatment of absence seizures in these populations.

Vortioxetine 5, 10, and 20 mg significantly reduces the risk of relapse compared with placebo in patients with remitted major depressive disorder: The RESET study.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) is typically recommended at the dose on which the patient was stabilized. However, for some patients, dose alteration may be required. We investigated multiple vortioxetine doses versus placebo for relapse prevention in patients achieving remission with vortioxetine 10 mg daily. METHODS: In this US-based, randomized withdrawal study, outpatients (N = 1106, aged 18-75 years) with recurrent MDD (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] score ≥26), a current major depressive episode (MDE) (8 weeks-18 months' duration), and ≥2 previous MDEs were treated with open-label vortioxetine 10 mg once daily orally for 16 weeks. Responders at week 8 (≥50% MADRS score reduction) achieving remission (MADRS score ≤12) at weeks 14 and 16 (N = 580) were randomized to vortioxetine 5, 10, or 20 mg or placebo in a 32-week double-blind period. The primary outcome was time to first relapse over the first 28 weeks; secondary outcomes (relapse, change in total MADRS, Clinician Global Impression-Severity [CGI-S]) were evaluated at 32 weeks. RESULTS: Time to relapse was longer and cumulative relapse rates were lower for vortioxetine 5 mg (19.3%), 10 mg (17.9%), and 20 mg (17.4%) versus placebo (32.5%) over 28 weeks (p<0.05 for all). CGI-S scores remained stable and adverse events were generally mild-to-moderate. LIMITATIONS: Extrapolation of results to patients achieving remission with vortioxetine doses other than 10 mg should be made with caution. CONCLUSION: For patients with MDD achieving symptomatic remission at 10 mg/day, all doses of vortioxetine were effective for relapse prevention, with acceptable tolerability.

Design of Phase 3 Studies Evaluating Vixotrigine for Treatment of Trigeminal Neuralgia.

PURPOSE: Vixotrigine (BIIB074) is a voltage- and use-dependent sodium channel blocker. These studies will evaluate the efficacy and safety of vixotrigine in treating pain experienced by patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN) using enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trial designs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two double-blind randomized withdrawal studies are planned to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vixotrigine compared with placebo in participants with TN (NCT03070132 and NCT03637387). Participant criteria include ≥18 years old who have classical, purely paroxysmal TN diagnosed ≥3 months prior to study entry, who experience ≥3 paroxysms of pain/day. The two studies will include a screening period, 7-day run-in period, a 4- or 6-week single-dose-blind dose-optimization period (Study 1) or 4-week open-label period (Study 2), and 14-week double-blind period. Participants will receive vixotrigine 150 mg orally three times daily in the dose-optimization and open-label periods. The primary endpoint of both studies is the proportion of participants classified as responders at Week 12 of the double-blind period. Secondary endpoints include safety measures, quality of life, and evaluation of vixotrigine population pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: There is a need for an effective, well-tolerated, noninvasive treatment for the neuropathic pain associated with TN. The proposed studies will evaluate the efficacy and safety of vixotrigine in treating pain experienced by patients with TN.

A novel study design for investigating relapse prevention in major depressive disorder: Preliminary data from the open-label period of a phase 4 vortioxetine study.

BACKGROUND: Traditional randomized withdrawal studies have assessed the efficacy of antidepressants for reducing relapse and recurrence of major depressive episodes (MDEs) but have not compared dose reduction, increase, or maintenance within the same study. METHODS: Here we present the development, implementation, and preliminary data from the open-label period of an ongoing phase 4, non-traditional, randomized withdrawal study. Designed to evaluate the efficacy of vortioxetine across its approved dose range for relapse prevention, the study enrolled adult patients with recurrent major depressive disorder (MDD), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) ≥ 26, and history of ≥2 MDEs. After a 16-week, open-label, fixed-dose (vortioxetine 10 mg once daily) period, patients meeting response criteria (≥50% reduction in MADRS total score, Weeks 8-16) and remission criteria (MADRS total score ≤12, Weeks 14 and 16) were randomized to vortioxetine 5, 10, or 20 mg, or placebo in a 32-week double-blind treatment period. RESULTS: Of 1106 patients enrolled, 510 completed the open-label period (mean age: 45.7 years; mean MADRS = 5.0; predominantly female, white, and never smokers) and were eligible for randomization in the ongoing double-blind period. LIMITATIONS: Study is ongoing; only data from the open-label period are available for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary analysis suggests that patient baseline characteristics were not a factor in response to and stabilization with vortioxetine during the open-label period. The lack of flexibility in dosing, however, may have reduced the number of patients qualifying for randomization. This study design may provide useful information for optimizing the long-term efficacy and tolerability of vortioxetine treatment for MDD.

Efficacy and safety of memantine in children with autism spectrum disorder: Results from three phase 2 multicenter studies.

Three phase 2 trials were conducted to assess the efficacy and long-term safety of weight-based memantine extended release (ER) treatment in children with autism spectrum disorder. MEM-MD-91, a 50-week open-label trial, identified memantine extended-release treatment responders for enrollment into MEM-MD-68, a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial. MEM-MD-69 was an open-label extension trial in which participants from MEM-MD-68, MEM-MD-91, and open-label trial MEM-MD-67 were treated ⩽48 weeks with memantine extended release. In MEM-MD-91, 517 (59.6%) participants were confirmed Social Responsiveness Scale responders at week 12; mean Social Responsiveness Scale total raw scores improved two to three times a minimal clinically important difference of 10 points. In MEM-MD-68, there was no difference between memantine and placebo on the primary efficacy parameter, the proportion of patients with a loss of therapeutic response (defined as ⩾10-point increase from baseline in Social Responsiveness Scale total raw score). MEM-MD-69 exploratory analyses revealed mean standard deviation improvement in Social Responsiveness Scale total raw score of 32.4 (26.4) from baseline of the first lead-in study. No new safety concerns were evident. While the a priori-defined efficacy results of the double-blind trial were not achieved, the considerable improvements in mean Social Responsiveness Scale scores from baseline in the open-label trials were presumed to be clinically important.

Relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in adults with major depressive disorder: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Levomilnacipran extended release (ER) is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved for major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults. This study was designed to evaluate relapse prevention with levomilnacipran ER in patients with MDD. METHODS: Patients (≥18 years) with MDD (N = 644) received 20 weeks of open-label treatment with levomilnacipran ER 40, 80, or 120 mg/d (8 weeks flexible dosing; 12 weeks fixed dosing). Patients with a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤12 from the end of week 8 to week 20 were randomized to 26 weeks of double-blind treatment with levomilnacipran ER (same dosage; n = 165) or placebo (n = 159). The primary efficacy endpoint was time to relapse, defined as insufficient therapeutic response (≥2-point increase from randomization in Clinical Global Impression of Severity score, risk of suicide, need for hospitalization due to worsening of depression, or need for alternative antidepressant treatment as determined by the investigator) or an MADRS total score ≥18 at 2 consecutive visits. RESULTS: In the double-blind intent-to-treat population, levomilnacipran ER-treated patients had a significantly longer time to relapse compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.92; P = 0.0212). Crude relapse rates were 14.5% (levomilnacipran ER) and 24.5% (placebo). Double-blind treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported for 58.8% and 56.0% of levomilnacipran ER and placebo patients, respectively; 3.0% and 1.3% discontinued due to AEs, and 1.2% and 0.6% had serious AEs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Levomilnacipran ER (40-120 mg/d) was effective in preventing relapse in patients with MDD. Safety and tolerability results were consistent with levomilnacipran ER acute studies.

The MOBILE Study-A Phase IIa Enriched Enrollment Randomized Withdrawal Trial to Assess the Analgesic Efficacy and Safety of ASP8477, a Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase Inhibitor, in Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of ASP8477 in patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP). DESIGN: Enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal. SETTING: Centers in Poland (four), Czech Republic (six), and the United Kingdom (two). SUBJECTS: Patients aged 18 years or older with PNP resulting from painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy or postherpetic neuralgia. METHODS: A four-week screening period followed by a single-blind period (six-day dose titration and three-week maintenance period with ASP8477 [20/30 mg BID]). Treatment responders (defined as a ≥30% decrease in the mean average daily pain intensity during the last three days of the single-blind period) were stratified by disease and randomized to receive placebo or continue ASP8477 during a three-week, double-blind, randomized withdrawal period. The primary end point was change in mean 24-hour average numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) from baseline to end of double-blind period. RESULTS: Among 132 patients who enrolled, 116 entered the single-blind period and 63 (ASP8477, N = 31; placebo, N = 32) completed the double-blind period. There was no difference in mean 24-hour average NPRS score (P = 0.644) or in time-to-treatment failure (P = 0.485) between ASP8477 and placebo. During the single-blind period, 57.8% of patients were treatment responders. ASP8477 was well tolerated. During the single-blind period, 22% of patients experienced at least one treatment-related adverse event (TEAE); during the double-blind period, 8% in the ASP8477 arm and 18% in the placebo arm experienced at least one TEAE. CONCLUSIONS: ASP8477 was well tolerated in patients with PNP; however, ASP8477 did not demonstrate a significant treatment difference compared with placebo.

Biological agents in polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized withdrawal trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although various biological agents are in use for polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA), head-to-head trials comparing the efficacy and safety among them are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of biological agents in pJIA using all currently available randomized withdrawal trials (wRCTs). METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov was performed. Eligible wRCTs: patients with pJIA where a biological agent was compared with another biological agent or placebo. Efficacy was evaluated using disease flare as a measure. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were evaluated. Network meta-analysis compared biological agents based on a (empirical Bayes) mixed-effects logistic regression model that combines statistical inference from both direct and indirect comparisons of the treatment effects between biological agents. RESULTS: Of 496 references identified, five wRCTs were included-abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, and tocilizumab, one trial each, all vs. placebo. There were no differences in efficacy among biological agents and most showed statistically significant efficacy compared with placebo (nearly all exceptions were in agreement with the original study data). Serious AEs occurred very infrequently (0-8%) and an analysis was not possible. There were no differences for AEs when compared among biological agents or to placebo. CONCLUSION: There were no statistical differences among biological agents for efficacy or safety. Overall, biological agents were effective and safe when compared to placebo. Based on these data, other considerations such as price and availability may need to be used to decide among biological agents when treating pJIA patients.

Systemic Sclerosis Trial Design Moving Forward.

The 2013 ACR-EULAR classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) have shifted the construct of SSc. The new reality is that patients recruited for trials may not be so severe and not so advanced. We can now look for therapeutics that might stop disease evolution and/or prevent organ involvement. This article highlights recent advances in research methodology, and broadens the potential range of design and analytic considerations when planning a SSc trial.

A two-way enriched clinical trial design: combining advantages of placebo lead-in and randomized withdrawal.

A new clinical trial design, designated the two-way enriched design (TED), is introduced, which augments the standard randomized placebo-controlled trial with second-stage enrichment designs in placebo non-responders and drug responders. The trial is run in two stages. In the first stage, patients are randomized between drug and placebo. In the second stage, placebo non-responders are re-randomized between drug and placebo and drug responders are re-randomized between drug and placebo. All first-stage data, and second-stage data from first-stage placebo non-responders and first-stage drug responders, are utilized in the efficacy analysis. The authors developed one, two and three degrees of freedom score tests for treatment effect in the TED and give formulae for asymptotic power and for sample size computations. The authors compute the optimal allocation ratio between drug and placebo in the first stage for the TED and compare the operating characteristics of the design to the standard parallel clinical trial, placebo lead-in and randomized withdrawal designs. Two motivating examples from different disease areas are presented to illustrate the possible design considerations.

Once daily controlled-release pregabalin in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: a phase III, double-blind, randomized withdrawal, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Safety and efficacy of a once daily controlled-released (CR) formulation of pregabalin was evaluated in patients with fibromyalgia using a placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal design. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter study included 6 week single-blind pregabalin CR treatment followed by 13 week double-blind treatment with placebo or pregabalin CR. The starting dose of 165 mg/day was escalated during the first 3 weeks, up to 495 mg/day based on efficacy and tolerability. Patients with ≥50% reduction in average daily pain score at the end of the single-blind phase were randomized to continue pregabalin CR at the optimized dose (330-495 mg/day) or to placebo. The primary endpoint was time to loss of therapeutic response (LTR), defined as <30% pain reduction relative to single-blind baseline or discontinuation owing to lack of efficacy or adverse event (AE). Secondary endpoints included measures of pain severity, global assessment, functional status, tiredness/fatigue, and sleep. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01271933. RESULTS: A total of 441 patients entered the single-blind phase, and 63 were randomized to pregabalin CR and 58 to placebo. The median time to LTR (Kaplan-Meier analysis) was significantly longer in the pregabalin CR group than placebo (58 vs. 22 days, p = 0.02). By trial end, 34/63 (54.0%) pregabalin CR and 41/58 (70.7%) placebo patients experienced LTR. Significantly more patients reported 'benefit from treatment' (Benefit, Satisfaction, and Willingness to Continue Scale) in the pregabalin CR group; no other secondary endpoints were statistically significant. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity (most frequent: dizziness, somnolence). The percentage of pregabalin CR patients discontinuing because of AEs was 12.2% and 4.8% in the single-blind and double-blind phases, respectively (placebo, 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Time to LTR was significantly longer with pregabalin CR versus placebo in fibromyalgia patients who initially showed improvement with pregabalin CR, indicating maintenance of response. Pregabalin CR was well tolerated in most patients. Generalizability may be limited by study duration and selective population.

Subcutaneous golimumab maintains clinical response in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Subcutaneous golimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα), was evaluated as maintenance therapy in TNFα antagonist-naive adults with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis, despite conventional therapy, who responded to golimumab induction therapy. METHODS: We performed a phase 3, double-blind trial of patients who completed golimumab induction trials (Program of Ulcerative Colitis Research Studies Utilizing an Investigational Treatment, eg, PURSUIT). Patients who responded to induction therapy with golimumab (n = 464) were assigned randomly to groups given placebo or injections of 50 or 100 mg golimumab every 4 weeks through week 52. Patients who responded to placebo in the induction study continued to receive placebo. Nonresponders in the induction study received 100 mg golimumab. The primary end point was clinical response maintained through week 54; secondary end points included clinical remission and mucosal healing at both weeks 30 and 54. RESULTS: Clinical response was maintained through week 54 in 47.0% of patients receiving 50 mg golimumab, 49.7% of patients receiving 100 mg golimumab, and 31.2% of patients receiving placebo (P = .010 and P < .001, respectively). At weeks 30 and 54, a higher percentage of patients who received 100 mg golimumab were in clinical remission and had mucosal healing (27.8% and 42.4%) than patients given placebo (15.6% and 26.6%; P = .004 and P = .002, respectively) or 50 mg golimumab (23.2% and 41.7%, respectively). Percentages of serious adverse events were 7.7%, 8.4%, and 14.3% among patients given placebo, 50 mg, or 100 mg golimumab, respectively; percentages of serious infections were 1.9%, 3.2%, and 3.2%, respectively. Among all patients given golimumab in the study, 3 died (from sepsis, tuberculosis, and cardiac failure, all in patients who received 100 mg golimumab) and 4 developed active tuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS: Golimumab (50 mg or 100 mg) maintained clinical response through week 54 in patients who responded to induction therapy with golimumab and had moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis; patients who received 100 mg golimumab had clinical remission and mucosal healing at weeks 30 and 54. Safety was consistent with that reported for other TNFα antagonists and golimumab in other approved indications. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00488631.