Two-year cost-effectiveness of different COBRA-like intensive remission induction schemes in early rheumatoid arthritis: a piggyback study on the pragmatic randomised controlled CareRA trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies among recently diagnosed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using methotrexate (MTX) and a step-down glucocorticoid (GC) scheme (COBRA Slim) compared with (1) this combination with either sulphasalazine (COBRA Classic) or leflunomide (COBRA Avant-Garde) in high-risk patients and (2) MTX without GCs (Tight-Step-Up, TSU) in low-risk patients. METHODS: The incremental cost-utility was calculated from a healthcare perspective in the intention-to-treat population (n=379) of the 2-year open-label pragmatic randomised controlled Care in early RA trial. Healthcare costs were collected prospectively through electronic trial records. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using mapping algorithms for EuroQoL-5 Dimension. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data and bootstrapping to calculate CIs. Robustness was tested with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at biosimilar prices. RESULTS: In the high-risk group, Classic (∆k€1.464, 95% CI -0.198 to 3.127) and Avant-Garde (∆k€0.636, 95% CI -0.987 to 2.258) were more expensive compared with Slim and QALYs were slightly worse for Classic (∆-0.002, 95% CI -0.086 to 0.082) and Avant-Garde (∆-0.009, 95% CI -0.102 to 0.084). This resulted in the domination of Classic and Avant-Garde by Slim. In the low-risk group, Slim was cheaper (∆k€-0.617, 95% CI -2.799 to 1.566) and QALYs were higher (∆0.141, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.274) compared with TSU, indicating Slim dominated. Results were robust against the price of biosimilars. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MTX with a GC bridging scheme is less expensive with comparable health utility than more intensive step-down combination strategies or a conventional step-up approach 2 years after initial treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01172639.

Long-term clinical, functional, and cost outcomes for early rheumatoid arthritis patients who did or did not achieve early remission in a real-world treat-to-target strategy.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the long-term clinical, functional, and cost outcomes for early RA patients (symptoms < 1 year) who did or did not achieve early remission in a treat-to-target strategy. METHOD: Five-year data of 471 patients included in the DREAM remission induction cohort were used. Patients were treated according to a pre-specified 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission driven step-up treatment strategy starting with methotrexate, addition of sulfasalazine, and exchange of sulfasalazine for biological medication in case of failure. Two- and 3-year healthcare costs were available for selected subsamples of patients only. RESULTS: DAS28 remission was achieved in 27.7%, 38.2%, and 51.6% of patients at 2, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Achieving DAS28 remission at 2, 3, or 6 months was consistently associated with significantly lower DAS28 and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability scores at 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up (all P values < 0.02). Patients in remission at 2, 3, or 6 months also had significantly lower medication costs per patient over the first 2 and 3 years of treatment, mainly due to lower biologic use, but differences in total healthcare resource costs (hospital admissions plus consultations) were less pronounced. Mean total medication and total healthcare resource costs at 3 years were €1131 and €1757 for patients in remission at 6 months vs. €7533 (P < 0.01) and €2202 (P = 0.09) for those not in remission. CONCLUSION: Achieving early remission was associated with beneficial clinical outcomes for early RA patients and lower costs in the long term. Key Points • Previous studies in rheumatoid arthritis patients have demonstrated that early good response is associated with sustained remission and better long-term clinical outcomes. • This study extents these findings by examining the long-term benefits of achieving early remission on clinical, patient-reported, and economic outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to treat-to-target principles. • The findings of this study clearly demonstrate that aiming for early remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients is beneficial in the long-term in terms of better clinical and functional outcomes and lower healthcare costs.

TNFα blockers followed by continuation of sulfasalazine and methotrexate combination: a retrospective study on cost saving options of treatment in Spondyloarthritis.

High cost deters continuous use of tumor necrosis factor α blockers (TNFi) in developing countries. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcome and expenditure incurred in Spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients beyond a year of follow-up after receiving four doses of infliximab (IFX) over and above background therapy of methotrexate (MTX) and sulfasalazine (SSZ) combination. Electronic medical records were screened for patients with SpA satisfying the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria between 2008 and 2014. Patients who completed at least 1 year of follow-up after receiving four doses of IFX (5 mg/kg at 0, 2, 6, and 14 weeks) on a background therapy of MTX (10-25 mg/week) and SSZ (2-3 g/day) combination were enrolled after obtaining an informed consent. Primary outcome assessed was "time to disease flare". Changes in acute phase reactants, patient reported outcomes (BASDAI, BASFI), and cost were also assessed. Forty-five patients were enrolled. Mean (SD) duration of follow up after fourth IFX dose was 28.9 (18.7) months. Disease flare occurred in 33.3% (15/45) after a mean (SD) duration of 14.5 (10.8) months as compared to 4-6 months described in literature on discontinuing TNFi. Reduction in ESR, CRP, BASDAI and BASFI continued to be statistically significant at follow-up as compared to baseline. As compared to continuous IFX therapy, this treatment reduced cost by 57.1% for each patient-month of follow-up. Short course IFX dosing followed by continuation of MTX and SSZ combination can prolong time to disease flare and decrease requirement for additional IFX dose in SpA. This regimen could be a cost saving option for patients with SpA.

Cost-Effectiveness of Triple Therapy Versus Etanercept Plus Methotrexate in Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all 4 interventions in the Treatment of Early Aggressive Rheumatoid Arthritis (TEAR) clinical trial: immediate triple (IT), immediate etanercept (IE), step-up triple (ST), and step-up etanercept (SE). Step-up interventions started with methotrexate and added either etanercept or sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine to patients with persistent disease activity. METHODS: We built a Markov cohort model that uses individual-level data from the TEAR trial, published literature, and supplemental clinical data. Costs were in US dollars, benefits in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), perspective was societal, and the time horizon was 5 years. RESULTS: The immediate strategies were more efficacious than step-up strategies. SE and IE were more costly than ST and IT, primarily due to treatment cost differences. In addition, IT was the least expensive and most effective strategy when the time horizon was 1 and 2 years. When the time horizon was 5 years, IE was marginally more effective than IT (3.483 versus 3.476 QALYs), but IE was substantially more expensive than IT ($148,800 versus $52,600), producing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12.5 million per QALY. These results were robust to both one-way deterministic and joint probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: IT was highly cost-effective in the majority of scenarios. Although IE was more effective in 5 years, a substantial reduction in the cost of biologic agents was required in order for IE to become cost-effective in early aggressive RA under willingness-to-pay thresholds that most health care settings may find acceptable.

Treating to the target of remission in early rheumatoid arthritis is cost-effective: results of the DREAM registry.

BACKGROUND: Where health economic studies are frequently performed using modelling, with input from randomized controlled trials and best guesses, we used real-life data to analyse the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a treatment strategy aiming to the target of remission compared to usual care in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We used real-life data from comparable cohorts in the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring (DREAM) registry: the DREAM remission induction cohort (treat-to-target, T2T) and the Nijmegen early RA inception cohort (usual care, UC). Both cohorts were followed prospectively using the DREAM registry methodology. All patients fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology criteria for RA and were included in the cohort at the time of diagnosis. The T2T cohort was treated according to a protocolised strategy aiming at remission (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) < 2.6). The UC cohort was treated without DAS28-guided treatment decisions. EuroQol-5D utility scores were estimated from the Health Assessment Questionnaire. A health care perspective was adopted and direct medical costs were collected. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per patient in remission and incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were calculated over two and three years of follow-up. RESULTS: Two year data were available for 261 T2T patients and 213 UC patients; an extended follow-up of three years was available for 127 and 180 patients, respectively. T2T produced higher remission percentages and a larger gain in QALYs than UC. The ICER was € 3,591 per patient in remission after two years and T2T was dominant after three years. The ICUR was € 19,410 per QALY after two years and T2T was dominant after three years. CONCLUSIONS: We can conclude that treating to the target of remission in early RA is cost-effective compared with UC. The data suggest that in the third year, T2T becomes cost-saving.

Biological vs. conventional combination treatment and work loss in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: The introduction of biological tumor necrosis factor inhibitors has improved the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but at a substantial cost. These drugs have been shown to lead to superior radiological outcomes compared with a combination of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs over 2 years. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether radiological superiority translates into better work loss outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, 2-arm, parallel, randomized, active-controlled, open-label trial. Patients with early RA (symptom duration <1 year) were recruited from 15 rheumatology clinics in Sweden from October 1, 2002, through December 31, 2005. The study population was restricted to working-age patients (aged <63 years). INTERVENTIONS: Patients who did not achieve low disease activity after 3 to 4 months of methotrexate therapy were randomized to receive additional biological treatment with infliximab or conventional combination treatment with sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Monthly sick leave and disability pension days 21 months after randomization retrieved from the nationwide Swedish Social Insurance Office register. Main analyses were by intention to treat, including all patients, and adjusted for baseline sick leave and disability pension. RESULTS: Of 204 eligible patients, 105 were randomized to biological and 99 to conventional treatment. Seven patients in the biological and 4 in the conventional treatment group never received the study drug, and 72 and 52 patients, respectively, followed the study per protocol for 21 months. The baseline mean (SD) work loss was 17 (13) d/mo (median, 16 d/mo) in both groups (mean difference, 0.6 d/mo; 95% CI, -3.0 to 3.9). The mean changes in work loss at 21 months were -4.9 d/mo in the biological and -6.2 d/mo in the conventional treatment group (adjusted mean difference, 1.6 d/mo; 95% CI, -1.2 to 4.4). Including only patients receiving at least 1 dose of assigned treatment, the adjusted mean difference was 1.5 d/mo (95% CI, -1.5 to 4.4), and in per-protocol analysis the adjusted mean difference was 0.3 d/mo (95% CI, -2.8 to 3.8). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The radiological superiority of biological compared with conventional combination therapy did not translate into better work loss outcomes in patients with early RA who had experienced an insufficient response to methotrexate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00764725.

[Financial cost of early rheumatoid arthritis in the first year of medical attention: three clinical scenarios in a third-tier university hospital in Colombia]. / Costos directos de la artritis reumatoide temprana en el primer año de atención: simulación de tres situaciones clínicas en un hospital universitario de tercer nivel en Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: In Colombia, the cost burden of chronic diseases is not well known, either globally or in localized areas of the health system. Rheumatoid arthritis is one of most common chronic diseases, and represents a high cost for the health system. OBJECTIVE: The direct medical costs were estimated for rheumatoid arthritis patients in the in the first year of diagnosis at a level 3 university hospital in Colombia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three therapy settings for early rheumatoid arthritis patients were established in the first year of diagnosis according to national and international guidelines. Each setting included treatment with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or biologic therapy based on disease severity as measured by Disease Activity Score 28. All direct medical costs were included: specialized medical care, diagnostic tests and drugs. Cost information was obtained from the Central Military Hospital finance department in Bogotá and the national manual of drug prices based on the "Farmaprecios" 2007 guide, a reference in general use by health institutions. Results. The average of cost of medical care in patients with mild, moderate and severe disease was US $1689, $1805 and $23,441 respectively. The recommended retail prices of the medicines published in "Farmaprecios" was US $1418, $1821 and $31,931. When the charges levied by several major health institutions were compared, substantial increases were noted, US $4936, $7716 and $123,661, respectively. Drug costs represented 86% of total cost, laboratory costs were 10% and medical attention was only 4%. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs costs were the principal component of the total direct medical cost, and it increased 40 times when a biological therapy is used. Complete economic evaluation studies are necesary to estimate the viability and clinical relevance of biological therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis.

[Ultrasonographic assessment of the response to Etanercept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis]. / Valutazione ultrasonografica della risposta al trattamento con Etanercept in pazienti con artrite reumatoide.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, using musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS), the effects of Etanercept therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over 3 months of treatment. METHODS: Eighteen consecutive patients, 3 male and 15 female, affected by RA (ACR criteria) who were non-responders or partial responders to DMARDs therapy were commenced on Etanercept treatment. MSUS was performed bilaterally in the 2nd and 5th metacarpophalangeal, 3rd interphalangeal, wrist and knee joints, using a Philips/HP Image Point HX machine with a 7,5 MHz linear probe for knee joints and a 14 MHz probe for the hands and wrists. In addition, power Doppler was used with the following settings: PRF 700-1000Hz, gain 60-65 dB, low filter. For all the changes a semi-quantitative score (0-3) was used to indicate the presence of a localised inflammatory process (synovitis, tenosynovitis). An overall score was then calculated based on the sum of the single scores in order to obtain a comprehensive score indicative of the global pathological change. RESULTS: The overall score significantly (p<10-5) reduced between T0 (8,5) and T3 (5). Even the most part of the local joint scores significantly reduced. CONCLUSIONS: A positive response to treatment with Etanercept was demonstrated by MSUS examination of several joints. The results of our study are supportive of those presented in other reports where MSUS was used to monitor disease activity. We were able however to demonstrate this in a wider range of anatomical targets than in previous studies. MSUS is a useful tool in the monitoring of biologic therapy in RA.

Indirect and total costs of early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine with sulfasalazine alone.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the effect of indirect costs for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) within the COBRA trial (Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis) on the cost-effectiveness of both therapies. Analyses of the efficacy and direct costs of the treatments have already been reported. METHODS: Patients with early RA selected for the 56-week trial were randomly assigned to prednisolone, methotrexate, and sulfasalazine (the COBRA combination) (n = 76, tapered after 28 weeks) or to sulfasalazine (SSZ; n = 79, of which 78 patients were evaluable) alone. The main efficacy outcomes were a pooled index and radiographic damage score in hands and feet, and utilities. Direct and indirect costs were measured (from a societal perspective) by means of cost diaries and interviews completed by patients during the intervention phase and the followup phase, each lasting 28 weeks. Differences in mean costs between groups and cost-utility ratios were evaluated by applying nonparametric bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: In the first 28 weeks, indirect costs per patient totaled US $2,578 and US $3,638 for COBRA and SSZ therapy, respectively (p = 0.09). The total costs were $5,931 and $7,853, respectively (p < 0.05). These differences were lost in the second 28 weeks. For the total period the mean total costs per patient were $10,262 and $12,788, respectively (p = 0.11). Sensitivity analyses showed robustness of the data. The point estimate of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year based on the rating scale was negative at $-385, suggesting dominance of COBRA (more effect at lower cost). CONCLUSION: COBRA therapy adds additional disease control (improvements in disease activity, physical function, and rate of damage progression) at lower or equal cost compared to SSZ in early RA.

[Markov model of decision making for basic therapy of rheumatoid arthritis: oder of monotherapy and expenses for drug therapy]. / Markovskaia model' priniatiia reshenii pri naznachenii bazisnoi terapii revmatoidnogo artrita: posledovatel'nost' monoterapii i zatraty na lekarstvennuiu terapiiu.

AIM: To design Markov's model of decision making to study the role of order in the use of most usable basic antirheumatic drugs (methotrexate-MT, parenteral gold--PG and sulfasalasine--SS) in terms of the course duration and cost. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The model was based on metaanalysis made in 2000. The program TreeAge 3.0 was used. The prices for the drugs were taken as mean about Moscow for 2002 and prices presented by ACR for 2002. RESULTS: The sequence MT-PG-SS had the advantage over the other sequences in that less number of patients stopped treatment after 5 and 10 years of therapy. Mean cost of the drugs per patient is the lowest (for five years) if MT is prescribed first. In longer treatment SS-MT-PG is more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to design Markov's models for making decision on optimal therapy of rheumatoid arthritis both in terms of cost and clinical response.

Impact of initial aggressive drug treatment with a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs on the development of work disability in early rheumatoid arthritis: a five-year randomized followup trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of therapy with a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) versus therapy with a single DMARD in the prevention of work disability in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In the Finnish Rheumatoid Arthritis Combination Therapy trial, 195 patients with recent-onset RA were randomly assigned to receive either combination therapy with DMARDs (sulfasalazine, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine) plus prednisolone or single therapy with a DMARD with or without prednisolone. After 2 years, the drug treatment strategy was no longer restricted. At baseline, 162 patients (80 in the combination-treatment group and 82 in the single-treatment group) were still working or at least available for work. After 5 years of followup, data on all sick leave and retirement were obtained from social insurance registers or case records. The main outcome for each patient was the cumulative duration of all sick leaves and RA-related disability pensions, divided by the observation period during which the patient was not retired because of another disease or because of age. RESULTS: The cumulative duration of work disability per patient-observation year was significantly lower in those randomized to combination therapy than in those randomized to single therapy: median 12.4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 0-54) versus 32.2 days (IQR 6-293) (P = 0.008, sex- and age-adjusted P = 0.009). This was mainly due to the difference in sick leaves (i.e., work disability periods

[Assessment of sulfasalazine and hydroxichloroqine hepatotoxicity in patients with rheumatic arthritis and isolated HBS-antigen positivity]. / Otsenka gepatotoksichnosti sul'fasalazina i gidroksikhlorokhina u bol'nykh revmatoidnym artritom s izolirovannym nositel'stvom HBs-antigena.

Findings were based on long-period survey (12-16 month) of 39 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and isolated persistent HBS-antigen. The patients were prescribed Hydroxichloroqine (H) and Sulfasolin (SF). Clinical data, laboratory tests, ultrasonic diagnostics to evaluate liver condition have been analyzed. HBs, Hbe-antigenes, DNA-virus B hepatitis blood test, nucleus dimensions, proliferative FGA response test and immune CD 8+, CD 14+ and CD 16+ cells to Fas-induced apoptosis were taken. SF therapy was found to be more hepatotoxic and likely to activate a latent virus B hepatitis as compared with Hydroxichloroqine and combine H and SF therapies. Triggering replication of virus B hepatitis occurs against a background of decreasing in functional activity of CD 14+ and CD 16+ cells. The immune critical level needed to activate VHB was determined.

Radiologic features in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a first step in the development of a standardized assessment method.

OBJECTIVE: To describe radiologic features of patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in a standardized manner, to test the reliability and feasibility of this description, and to correlate these features with clinical signs as a first step in the development of a standardized assessment method. METHODS: The placebo-controlled study of sulfasalazine in patients with oligoarticular, extended oligoarticular, and polyarticular JIA performed by the Dutch Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Study Group yielded the data for this study. All trial entry radiographs (clinically involved joints and contralateral joints) were scored (in consensus by a skeletal radiologist and pediatric rheumatologist) for the presence of swelling, osteopenia, joint space narrowing, growth abnormalities, subchondral bone cysts, erosions, and malalignment. RESULTS: Data on 67 of 69 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 9.1 years (range 2.5-17.6 years), and the median disease duration was 24 months (range 5-176 months). Thirteen percent of the patients were IgM rheumatoid factor (IgM-RF) positive, and 16% were HLA-B27 positive. All 68 clinically evaluated joints were included in the maximum of 19 radiographed joints (or joint groups) per patient. The mean number of radiographed joints per patient was 7 (range 2-15); knees, hands, ankles, and feet were most frequently affected. Fifty-eight patients (87%) had radiologic abnormalities in at least one joint (soft-tissue swelling in 63% of patients, growth disturbances in 48%, joint space narrowing in 28%, and erosions in 15%). In total, half of the radiographs of the clinically involved joints showed radiologic abnormalities, including two-thirds of the radiographs of the clinically affected hands and knees. Univariate analysis revealed a good correlation between the overall articular (clinical) severity and the presence of radiologic abnormalities (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed increased ORs for the presence of radiologic abnormalities and IgM-RF positivity (OR 4.6, P = 0.005) or HLA-B27 positivity (OR 3.0, P = 0.004). In general, reproducibility of the radiologic scoring method was good (mean kappa coefficient of 0.74 [range 0.40-0.86]), although there were scoring discrepancies for swelling, osteopenia, and growth disturbances. The scoring took 10-20 minutes per patient. CONCLUSION: Our model of describing and scoring radiologic abnormalities of radiographed joints in JIA was feasible, mostly reproducible, correlated well with the overall articular severity score, and added substantial new information not available on clinical examination.

A cost effectiveness analysis of treatment options for methotrexate-naive rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: New treatment options for patients with methotrexate (MTX)-naive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have become available. Given wide variability in efficacy and cost among different treatment options, we sought to determine their relative cost effectiveness to help guide policy in different cost constrained settings. METHODS: We performed a cost effectiveness analysis comparing 5 monotherapy options for patients with MTX-naive RA: (1) etanercept, (2) leflunomide, (3) MTX (up to 15 mg weekly), (4) sulfasalazine (SSZ), and (5) no second line agent. A decision analysis model was used with a time horizon of 6 months. We employed 2 measures of effectiveness based on published clinical trial data: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% response proportion (ACR 20) and a weighted average of proportions achieving ACR 70, ACR 50, and ACR 20 (ACR 70 weighted response, ACR 70WR). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were calculated as additional cost per patient achieving either outcome, compared with the next most expensive option. RESULTS: In both base case analyses employing ACR 20 and ACR 70WR as effectiveness measures, MTX and SSZ both cost less and were more effective (i.e., cost saving) than no second line agent. Leflunomide cost more and was less efficacious than SSZ (dominated) in analyses using either outcome. The most efficacious option, etanercept, cost US $41,900 per ACR 20 and $40,800 per ACR 70 WR compared with SSZ and MTX, respectively. When we included only direct costs in analyses, the least expensive non-dominated option was SSZ with incremental cost effectiveness ratios of US $900 per ACR 20 and $1500 per ACR 70WR compared with no second line agent. Overall, relative cost effectiveness between MTX and SSZ was sensitive to variation in relevant variables in sensitivity analyses. Otherwise, our extensive sensitivity analyses did not substantially affect the base case results. CONCLUSION: MTX is cost effective (cost saving vs the no second line agent option) for MTX-naive RA in achieving ACR 20 or ACR 70WR over a 6 month period. Based on available data, the relative cost effectiveness between SSZ and MTX cannot be determined with reasonable certainty and SSZ therapy appears to be as cost effective as MTX (cost saving) in achieving ACR outcomes over a 6 month period. The most efficacious option, etanercept, incurs much higher incremental costs per ACR 20 or ACR 70WR than other options analyzed. Whether etanercept compared with MTX is cost effective depends on whether > $40,000 per ACR 20 or ACR 70WR over a 6 month period is considered acceptable.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: randomized comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone. COBRA Trial Group. Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of early intervention in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine, compared to sulphasalazine alone. METHODS: Multicentre 56 week randomized double-blind trial with full economic analysis of direct costs and utility analysis with rating scale and standard gamble measurement techniques. RESULTS: The combined-treatment group included 76 patients and the sulphasalazine group 78 patients. The mean total costs per patient in the first 56 weeks of follow-up were $5519 for combined treatment and $6511 for treatment with sulphasalazine alone (P = 0.37). Out-patient care, in-patient care and non-health care each contributed about one-third to the total costs. The combined-treatment group appeared to generate savings in the length of hospital stay for RA, non-protocol drugs and costs of home help, but comparisons were not statistically significant. Protocol drugs and monitoring were slightly more expensive in the combined-treatment group. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes significantly favoured combined treatment at week 28 (radiography also at week 56). Utility scores also favoured combined treatment. CONCLUSION: Combined treatment is cost-effective due to enhanced efficacy at lower or equal direct costs.

[Combination therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: the COBRA study]. / Combinatietherapie bij vroege reumatoïde artritis: het COBRA-onderzoek.

The scheme 'Combination therapy in rheumatoid arthritis' (COBRA) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves administration of not only sulfasalazine but also prednisolone and methotrexate during the first six months. The trial showed that the COBRA scheme over a period of 1.5 years was superior to sulfasalazine alone: less disease activity in the major part of the year of treatment, less articular damage on radiographs, fewer side effects and equal or reduced costs. An 'aggressive' treatment in patients with early RA is indicated, with (re)assessment of the use of corticosteroids.

Assessment of sulphasalazine as a treatment modality in Sjögren's disease in NZB/NZW F1 hybrid mice.

OBJECTIVE: Sulphasalazine is a recognised second-line agent in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The aim of this study was to determine if it might prove useful in the treatment of Sjögren's syndrome. METHODS: The trial was performed in NZB/NZW F1 hybrid mice and efficacy was assessed on the basis of a reduction in the lymphocytic infiltration of the submandibular salivary and lacrimal glands. The animals were divided into three groups; the control group remained untreated, the second group received the drug from 14-42 weeks and the third group received sulphasalazine from 26-42 weeks. At four-weekly intervals throughout the study, five animals in each group were killed using ether and the glands assessed for lymphocytic infiltration using a modified focus scoring technique with light microscopy. RESULTS: No significant reduction in the lymphocytic infiltration occurred consistently throughout the trials with sulphasalazine. CONCLUSION: Sulphasalazine did not significantly alter the development of Sjögren's disease in NZB/NZW F1 mice.

Variations among rheumatologists in prescribing and monitoring of disease modifying antirheumatoid drugs.

One hundred consultant rheumatologists were sent a questionnaire on their prescribing pattern, and dose and monitoring schedules of four disease modifying antirheumatoid drugs (DMARDs). Seventy-five completed questionnaires were received. Sulphasalazine was the most popular first choice DMARD. There was general agreement on dose schedules which were similar to those recommended in the data sheets although for each drug a minority used different dose schedules. There was, however, marked variation among respondents in what was accepted as an adequate trial of therapy, in monitoring schedules and in the interpretation of results of toxicity monitoring. In many cases these practices differed significantly from the data sheet recommendations. These differences in stated practice could have financial and medicolegal as well as clinical implications.