Objective: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) golimumab+methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite etanercept+MTX or adalimumab+MTX therapy and evaluate whether intravenous (IV) golimumab could rescue patients who were nonresponders to SC golimumab.Methods: In this multicenter, assessor-blinded, active-switch study of patients with RA (n=433) with inadequate response to etanercept or adalimumab+MTX, patients continued MTX and received open-label SC golimumab 50mg every 4 weeks through week 12. DAS28-ESR good responders at week 16 continued open-label SC golimumab through week 52 (Group 1); nonresponders were randomized to double-blind golimumab SC 50mg (Group 2-SC) or IV 2mg/kg (Group 2-IV). Week 14 ACR20 was the primary endpoint; assessments continued through week 52 and for patients in the voluntary long-term extension through week 76. A major secondary endpoint was the proportions of patients with ACR20 response at week 52 relative to week 16 in Group 2-SC and Group 2-IV.Results: At week 14, 34.9% (p<0.001) achieved an ACR20. At week 52, patients in Group 1 (n=75) achieved an ACR20 (62.7%). In Groups 2-SC (n=91) and 2-IV (n=184), 13.2% and 9.2% had an ACR20 at week 52 relative to week 16, with no significant difference between the randomized groups; 42.9% and 47.8% achieved DAS28-ESR response relative to week 0. Through week 16, 4.6% of patients had a serious adverse event. No differences in the rates or types of adverse events were observed between SC and IV golimumab from weeks 16 to 52. The trial limitations included a higher than expected discontinuation rate as a result of a programming error.Conclusion: SC golimumab+MTX significantly suppressed disease activity in RA patients with inadequate response to etanercept and/or adalimumab + MTX. Patients randomized to Groups 2-SC and 2-IV had lower response rates than Group 1, with no difference between SC or IV mode of administration. The safety profile with IV golimumab was comparable to that established with SC golimumab.Trial registration: NCT01004432, EudraCT 2009-010582-23.

Aim: To test the hypothesis that a therapeutic dose of ocrelizumab (200 mg × 2), can be administered as a single-infusion (400 mg × 1) to achieve clinical efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Patients & methods: Three hundred and fourteen patients were randomized to double-blind placebo, ocrelizumab single-infusion or dual-infusion. The primary end point is American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response at week 24 for single-infusion ocrelizumab versus placebo. Results: At 24 weeks, ACR20 responses for patients treated with single-infusion ocrelizumab were not statistically significantly superior to placebo (37.6% [95% CI: 28.8–46.4%] vs 28.1% [95% CI: 17.1–39.1%]; p = 0.2253). ACR20 for dual-infusion ocrelizumab was 52.7% (95% CI: 44.1–61.2%). Initial depletion of peripheral B cells appeared comparable after single and dual-infusions. However, subsequent B-cell repletion occurred earlier after single-infusion. Adverse events were comparable across groups. Conclusion: Ocrel...

Objective: To examine the impact of an electronic data capture system on patient satisfaction and patient-physician interactions in a rheumatology clinical setting.Study design: In this multicenter study, 1079 patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed questionnaires quarterly about their health and satisfaction with care using a computer At 6 months, 901 eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to receive or not to receive graphical summarized health information or Health Tracker (HT) reports. Data collected at each visit included patient satisfaction with care; patient-physician interaction assessments; a 56-joint self-assessment for patients; a 28-joint assessment for physicians; patient pain, fatigue, and global assessments (visual analogue scale, physician global assessment, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Short Form-12) all of which were cumulatively recorded in the HT report.Results: Patient demographics at baseline were similar between groups. Changes from baseline to 1 year showed that patients in the HT-viewers group were significantly more satisfied with their care (p < 0.001) than those in the HT-nonviewers group (p = 0.131). Physicians reported improved interactions with patients at 1 year in both the HT-viewers (p < 0.001) and HT-nonviewers groups (p = 0.002); however, the improvement was significantly larger for the HT-viewers group than for the HT-nonviewers group (p < 0.001). Adverse events were comparable between groups.Conclusions: Patient access to systematically collected patient data reports promoted self-involvement and improved patient satisfaction and patient-physician interactions more in the HT-viewers than in HT-nonviewers groups at 1 year (p < 0.001). This was an open, observational study; no formal hypothesis testing was conducted. The HT system was not validated and some bias may have existed with respect to patient comfort level with a computer, user error, and timing of data entry of the physicians' assessments.