ReviewPharmacoEconomics2013
Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a NICE single technology appraisal.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Abatacept, Golimumab, and Sarilumab as Selected Bio-Originator Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs with Diverse Mechanisms of Action in Their Current Use in Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Promising role of polymeric nanoparticles in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.Inflammopharmacology · 2022Review
- Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Rituximab in combination with corticosteroids for the treatment of anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2014Article
- Aripiprazole for the treatment and prevention of acute manic and mixed episodes in bipolar I disorder in children and adolescents: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Ruxolitinib for the treatment of myelofibrosis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Dabigatran for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation: A NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Cabazitaxel for the second-line treatment of metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Trabectedin for the treatment of advanced metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Rituximab for the first-line maintenance treatment of follicular non-Hodgkin's lymphoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Golimumab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Bivalirudin for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Trastuzumab for the treatment of HER2-positive metastatic gastric cancer : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Pazopanib for the first-line treatment of patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma : a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: a NICE single technology appraisal.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As part of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) single technology appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of golimumab (Simponi(®); Merck Sharp & Dohme, USA) was invited to submit evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after the failure of previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at The University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides details of the manufacturer's initial submission, the ERG's clarification questions and the ERG report submitted to NICE. The decision made by NICE is provided alongside a brief comment on additional results produced from an additional analysis requested by NICE on behalf of the Committee. The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based on upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The clinical evidence was derived from three randomized controlled trials of golimumab in the treatment of moderate to severe RA: GO-FORWARD and Kay et al. (DMARD-experienced population) and GO-AFTER (tumour necrosis factor [TNF]-α inhibitor-experienced population). The ERG considered that the trials were of reasonable methodological quality and measured a clinically relevant range of outcomes. The trials for golimumab, as well as comparator treatments, were synthesized using mixed-treatment comparison methods for the DMARD-experienced population and an indirect comparison using the Bucher method for the TNF-α inhibitor-experienced population. The trials used were appropriate, although no definitive judgement regarding the comparative efficacy of golimumab with other biologics was possible. The manufacturer provided a DMARD-experienced population model and a TNF-α inhibitor-experienced population model. The models allowed sequences of treatments to be evaluated for each population, although a fully incremental analysis between the use of golimumab following DMARD failure and the use of golimumab following TNF-α inhibitor failure was not possible. Several limitations with the model were identified, and after a request from NICE and suspension of the appraisal, the manufacturer submitted sensitivity analyses with an additional American College of Rheumatology 70 % improvement criteria (ACR70) health state included, using SF-36 data directly from the GO-FORWARD study. The annual rate of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score increase for patients receiving palliative treatment was also changed from 0.09 to 0.06. The further analyses provided highlighted the particular sensitivity of the results to HAQ progression rates and the re-administration frequency for rituximab in the TNF-α inhibitor-experienced population. The Appraisal Committee concluded that golimumab should be recommended in combination with methotrexate as an option for patients with severe active RA who have failed on conventional DMARDs, or who have failed on a TNF-α inhibitor and are contraindicated to or withdrawn from rituximab.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.