Objective. To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus oral administration of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods. MTX-naive patients with active RA (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints >4) were eligible for the study if they had not previously taken biologic agents and had not taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for 2 weeks prior to randomization. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 15 mg/week of MTX either orally (2 7.5-mg tablets plus a dummy prefilled syringe; n ‫؍‬ 187 patients) or SC (prefilled syringe containing 10 mg/ml plus 2 dummy tablets; n ‫؍‬ 188 patients) for 24 weeks. At week 16, patients who did not meet the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) were switched from 15 mg of oral MTX to 15 mg of SC MTX and from 15 mg of SC MTX to 20 mg of SC MTX for the remaining 8 weeks, still in a blinded manner. The primary outcome was an ACR20 response at 24 weeks.Results. At week 24, significantly more patients treated with SC MTX than with oral MTX showed ACR20 (78% versus 70%) and ACR70 (41% versus 33%) responses. Patients with a disease duration >12 months had even higher ACR20 response rates (89% for SC administration and 63% for oral). In 52 of the ACR20 nonresponders (14%), treatment was switched at week 16. Changing from oral to SC MTX and from 15 mg to 20 mg of SC MTX resulted in 30% and 23% ACR20 response rates, respectively, in these patients. MTX was well tolerated. The rate of adverse events was similar in all groups. Conclusion. This 6-month prospective, randomized, controlled trial is the first to examine oral versus SC administration of MTX. We found that SC administration was significantly more effective than oral administration of the same MTX dosage. There was no difference in tolerability.

ObjectiveTo estimate the changes in direct and indirect costs induced by patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in German rheumatology, between 2002 and 2011. To examine the impact of functional status on various cost domains. To compare the direct costs incurred by patients at working age (18–64 years) to patients at an age of retirement (≥65 years).MethodsWe analysed data from the National Database of the German Collaborative Arthritis Centres with about 3400 patients each year. Costs were calculated using fixed prices as well as annually updated cost factors. Indirect costs were calculated using the human capital as well as the friction cost approaches.ResultsThere was a considerable increase in direct costs: from €4914 to €8206 in patients aged 18–64, and from €4100 to €6221 in those aged ≥65, attributable to increasing prescription of biologic agents (18–64 years from 5.6% to 31.2%, ≥65 years from 2.8% to 19.2%). This was accompanied by decreasing inpatient treatment expenses and indirect costs due to sick leave and work disability. The total growth of cost, on average, was €2437–2981 for patients at working age, and €2121 for patients at retirement age.ConclusionsThe increase in treatment costs for RA over the last decade was associated with lower hospitalisation rates, better functional status and a lower incidence of work disability, offsetting a large proportion of risen drug costs. Since the rise in drug costs has manifested a plateau from 2009 onwards, no relevant further increase in total costs for patients with RA treated in German rheumatology is expected.

ObjectiveTo determine the non-inferiority of nurse-led care (NLC) in patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive and/or rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with active disease who are starting disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy, following treat-to-target (T2T) recommendations.MethodsA multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was conducted to assess clinical effectiveness, anxiety, depression and patient satisfaction following a non-inferiority design. The participants were 224 adults with ACPA/RF-positive RA who were randomly assigned to either NLC or rheumatologist-led care (RLC). The primary outcome was the Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints measured with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) assessed at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. A DAS28-CRP difference of 0.6 was set as the non-inferiority margin. Mean differences between the groups were assessed following per-protocol and intention-to-treat strategies.ResultsDemographic data and baseline characteristics of patients in the NLC group (n=111) were comparable to those of patients in the RLC group (n=113). The improvement in disease activity (change in DAS28-CRP, primary outcome) over the course of 12 months was significant in both groups (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the NLC and RLC groups (p=0.317). Non-inferiority of NLC was shown for the primary outcome and all secondary outcomes.ConclusionThis study supported the non-inferiority of NLC in managing T2T and follow-up care of patients with RA with moderate to high disease activity and poor prognostic factors in addition to RLC.Trial registration numberDRKS00013055.

To compare healthcare resource utilization and costs between ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients and a matched sample from the general population without AS covered by the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI) system, a non-interventional retrospectively matched cohort analysis was conducted using anonymized SHI claims data. Data from January 1st, 2011 through December 31st, 2014 were analyzed. Individuals with a coded diagnosis of AS during the enrollment period comprising the full year of 2013 were directly matched (1:5) to individuals without AS diagnosis in the whole study period by age, gender, hospitalizations, and comorbidities. All-cause healthcare resource utilization and direct costs were analyzed for the year 2013. Statistical tests were applied to compare the differences between the two sampled populations. In 2013, 10,208 AS patients were identified and matched to a sample of 51,040 patients without AS from the general population. Healthcare resource utilization was significantly higher in all healthcare sectors (inpatient, outpatient, pharmaceuticals, remedies, devices and aids, and sick leave) in the AS cohort. Mean all-cause healthcare costs per patient were about €2475 higher in the AS cohort compared to the general population. Most important cost drivers were hospitalizations and pharmaceuticals in terms of bDMARDs prescribed in 10% of the patients. Real-world data from this German claims database analysis showed that AS is associated with a substantial incremental economic burden to the healthcare system.

Tocilizumab administered in a real-life setting showed clinically meaningful improvements and a safety profile that was consistent with data reported from pre-approval Phase III studies.