Article Text

Download PDFPDF

  1. L. C. Coates1,
  2. L. Gossec2,
  3. E. Theander3,
  4. P. Bergmans4,
  5. M. Neuhold5,
  6. C. Karyekar6,
  7. M. Shawi6,
  8. W. Noel5,
  9. G. Schett7,
  10. I. Mcinnes8
  1. 1University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. 2Sorbonne Université, Professor of Rheumatology, Paris, France
  3. 3Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Immunology, Solna, Sweden
  4. 4Janssen, Biostatistics, Breda, Netherlands
  5. 5Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Immunology, Brussels, Belgium
  6. 6Janssen Global Services, LLC, Immunology, Horsham, United States of America
  7. 7University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Internal Medicine 3, Erlangen, Germany
  8. 8University of Glasgow, Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation, Glasgow, United Kingdom


Background: Guselkumab (GUS), a selective monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-23p19 subunit, has demonstrated efficacy in 2 pivotal Ph3 psoriatic arthritis (PsA) studies (DISCOVER-1,1 DISCOVER-22).

Objectives: Evaluate GUS efficacy and safety in PsA patients (pts) with inadequate response (IR) to tumor-necrosis-factor inhibition (TNFi) through Week24 (W24) of the Ph3b COSMOS study.

Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial, 285 pts with active PsA (≥3 swollen & ≥3 tender joints) who demonstrated lack of benefit or intolerance to 1-2 TNFi were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous GUS 100mg (n=189) or PBO (n=96) at W0, W4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W) through W44 (with PBO crossover to GUS at W24). At W16, pts who met early escape (EE) criteria (<5% improvement in both tender & swollen joint counts) also could switch from PBO to GUS. The primary efficacy endpoint was ACR20 response at W24 among randomized, treated pts. Pts missing ACR20 data at W24 or who met treatment failure criteria (including meeting EE criteria at W16) were considered nonresponders (NRs). Subgroup analyses were performed to assess consistency of primary treatment effect based on demographics, disease characteristics, and medication use at baseline. Prespecified sensitivity analyses included ‘Per-Protocol’ (PP) (excluded pts with major protocol deviations) and ‘EE-Correction’ (included pts incorrectly routed to EE) analyses. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized by treatment received.

Results: Baseline characteristics were similar across GUS and PBO pts, though a higher proportion of females and more severe joint symptoms were seen in the GUS group. At W24, 44.4% of GUS vs 19.8% of PBO pts achieved ACR20 (p<0.001) (Figure). GUS was superior to PBO for all major secondary endpoints. Efficacy was consistent across subgroups defined by baseline characteristics, including in pts who discontinued prior TNFi use due to inadequate efficacy (84% GUS vs 81% PBO) and safety (16% GUS vs 19% PBO) (Table). 20 pts (12 GUS, 8 PBO) were incorrectly routed to EE. Results of PP (48.8% vs 23.8%) and EE-correction (48.1% vs 19.8%) sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis (Figure). AEs were similar between GUS- and PBO-treated pts (Table).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of, and adverse events reported by, randomized and treated COSMOS pts

Conclusion: In this Ph3b, placebo-controlled study of PsA pts with IR to 1-2 TNFi, GUS 100 mg Q8W elicited a significantly higher ACR20 response rate vs. PBO at W24; results of prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses were consistent. GUS safety in TNF-IR PsA pts through W24 is consistent with the favorable GUS safety profile in psoriasis and biologic-naïve PsA pts.3

References: [1]Deodhar A. Lancet 2018;391: 2213–24.

[2]Mease PJ. Lancet 2020;395: 1126–36.

[3]Guselkumab Prescribing Information. Janssen Biotech, Inc.

Disclosure of Interests: Laura C Coates Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelehim, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Novartis, Pfizer, Laure Gossec Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, Elke Theander Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Marlies Neuhold Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Chetan Karyekar Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, May Shawi Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Global Services, LLC, Wim Noel Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Georg Schett: None declared, Iain McInnes Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.