IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v11y2018i3d10.1007_s40271-018-0297-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Satisfaction with Subcutaneous Golimumab and its Auto-Injector among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Adalimumab or Etanercept

Author

Listed:
  • Raphael J. Dehoratius

    (Janssen Scientific Affairs
    Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University)

  • Lawrence H. Brent

    (Temple University)

  • Jeffrey R. Curtis

    (University of Alabama at Birmingham
    University of Alabama at Birmingham, Faculty Offices Tower, Room 802)

  • Lorie A Ellis

    (Janssen Scientific Affairs)

  • Kezhen L. Tang

    (Janssen Research and Development)

Abstract

Background Patient perceptions of treatment success, including satisfaction/preference, may complement clinical efficacy assessments. Objective Our objective was to evaluate satisfaction with subcutaneous golimumab and its auto-injector in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate adalimumab/etanercept response. Methods In the multicenter, assessor-blinded GO-SAVE study, 433 patients with active RA (28-joint Disease Activity Score incorporating erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] ≥ 3.6 and six or more swollen and six or more tender joints) despite methotrexate and past adalimumab/etanercept treatment received open-label subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (q4w) through week 12. Week 16 responders (DAS28-ESR improvement from baseline > 1.2 and score ≤ 3.2) continued therapy through week 52; nonresponders were randomized (1:2) to double-blind subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg q4w or intravenous golimumab 2 mg/kg [weeks 16, 20, every 8 weeks (q8w)]. Patients rated satisfaction with their injection experience on a 5-point scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied) at screening, week 8 (all enrolled patients), and week 44 (for patients continuing open-label subcutaneous golimumab 50 mg q4w). Discomfort, pain, stinging, burning, and redness related to injection were assessed (none, mild, moderate, severe). Results Similar proportions of patients (N = 433) had most recently received adalimumab (50.3%) or etanercept (49.7%) prior to golimumab. Overall satisfaction (somewhat/very) with the golimumab injection experience was reported by 84.4% of patients at week 8 versus 63.4% of patients who were satisfied with prior adalimumab/etanercept. Patients receiving open-label subcutaneous golimumab through week 44 (N = 75) reported much less discomfort (60.9%), redness (60.9%), pain (59.4%), stinging (67.2%), and burning (65.6%) with the golimumab injection than with their previous tumor necrosis factor antagonist medication injection. Conclusion Most patients with RA receiving golimumab following adalimumab/etanercept inadequate response were satisfied with their overall golimumab experience, including its auto-injector versus their previous injection device. Clinical trials.gov NCT01004432; EudraCT 2009-010582-23.

Suggested Citation

  • Raphael J. Dehoratius & Lawrence H. Brent & Jeffrey R. Curtis & Lorie A Ellis & Kezhen L. Tang, 2018. "Satisfaction with Subcutaneous Golimumab and its Auto-Injector among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Adalimumab or Etanercept," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 11(3), pages 361-369, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0297-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-018-0297-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-018-0297-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-018-0297-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:11:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-018-0297-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.