The impact of C-reactive protein levels on the effectiveness of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 12-month prospective, non-interventional German study.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether the effectiveness of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is affected by baseline CRP levels in a real-world setting. METHODS: UPwArds was a prospective, non-interventional study. Patients had moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). The primary endpoint was clinical remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤2.8) at 6 months. Secondary endpoints at 12 months included clinical remission and low disease activity assessed by CDAI and Simple Disease Activity Index criteria, DAS28-CRP <2.6/≤3.2, and patient-reported outcomes. The impact of baseline CRP levels (normal vs. above the upper limit of normal [ULN]) on primary and secondary endpoints was evaluated. The effect of concomitant MTX and prior inadequate response to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARD-IR) on the effectiveness of upadacitinib was also assessed. Safety was evaluated through 12 months. RESULTS: 518 patients were included in the effectiveness analyses. At 6 months, 24.4% of patients achieved the primary endpoint (CDAI ≤2.8). At 12 months, similar proportions of patients with normal CRP and CRP above the ULN at baseline achieved CDAI ≤2.8 (27.3% and 29.1%) and other key secondary endpoints. The effectiveness of upadacitinib was comparable with and without concomitant MTX and in b/tsDMARD-naive and b/tsDMARD-IR patients. The safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of upadacitinib; no new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Upadacitinib therapy was effective for RA in a real-world setting. Baseline CRP levels had no significant impact on the effectiveness of upadacitinib.

[Head-to-head trials in rheumatoid arthritis]. / Head-to-Head-Therapiestudien zur rheumatoiden Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head studies are important to select the optimal treatment in terms of efficacy and side effect profiles when several drugs are available. AIM OF THE WORK: This article describes all studies comparing the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in head-to-head studies or in which a DMARD was at least included in an active comparison arm. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies comparing DMARDs were identified. These included comparisons of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors with methotrexate and with adalimumab as well as the oral surveillance study. DISCUSSION: There are already an exceptionally large number of head-to-head studies in RA, both for comparisons of efficacy and safety of DMARDs. Nevertheless, more such comparative studies are needed, for example to clarify whether adverse events of tofacitinib observed in the oral surveillance study are specific to the JAK 1/JAK 3 inhibitor or are a class effect of all JAK inhibitors.

Real-world experience with filgotinib for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany : A retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data for filgotinib, a Janus kinase (JAK)1 inhibitor, are limited in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVES: To explore real-world filgotinib use in patients with RA in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective chart review included patients aged ≥ 18 years with confirmed moderate to severe RA who initiated filgotinib before December 1, 2021, with ≥ 6 months of medical records available prior to filgotinib initiation or after initial diagnosis. Patient characteristics, prior treatments, reasons for initiating/discontinuing filgotinib, disease activity, dose adjustments and concomitant treatments were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 301 patients from 20 German rheumatology outpatient units were included. One-third were aged ≥ 65 years and almost half had ≥ 1 cardiovascular (CV) risk factor. Most patients initiated filgotinib as monotherapy (83.7%; 12.7% of whom with glucocorticoids) and at the 200 mg dose (84.7%); higher proportions of those initiating the 100 versus 200 mg dose were aged ≥ 65 years and had renal impairment or ≥ 1 CV risk factor. Oral administration (78.4%), fast onset of action (66.8%) and administration as monotherapy (65.4%) were the most common reasons for initiating filgotinib. At 12 months, 41 (18.4%) patients had discontinued filgotinib, most commonly due to lack of effectiveness. After 6­months of follow-up, 36.8% of patients had achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission and 45.6% had achieved CDAI low disease activity. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice in Germany, reasons for initiating filgotinib in patients with RA were related to dosing flexibility and general JAK inhibitor attributes. Filgotinib was used predominantly as monotherapy and was effective and generally well tolerated; however, longer-term data in larger, prospective cohorts are needed.

[DMARD (disease-modifying antirheumatic drug) treatment in patients with former or current cancer]. / DMARD("disease-modifying antirheumatic drug")-Therapie bei früherer und aktiver Tumorerkrankung.

In contrast to the original fear that treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and especially with biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), was associated with an increased risk of the induction of malignancies, this has meanwhile fortunately not been confirmed over the long-term administration. Evaluations from register-based investigations as well as from other long-term cohort studies confirm that neither conventional DMARDs, such as methotrexate, nor tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors or biologics with a different mode of action show such a risk for induction of cancer or hematological malignancies (for skin tumors see the other article). Regarding the question whether recurrences of former malignancies can be induced by DMARDs, the database is considerably smaller; however, published investigations dealing with this topic so far signal that also in this respect no increased risk can be found. When comparing the individual substances with each other no substantial differences can be found. Although used in the treatment of hematological cancers, rituximab does not offer any advantages in comparison to other biologics. For the group of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, which have been in use only for a few years, data outside the randomized controlled studies (which are limited in time and are conducted with a selected patient population) are limited so that a clear statement regarding the malignancy risk is not yet possible for these substances. In a solitary study comparing tofacitinib with TNF inhibitors in high-risk patients, the malignancy risk of the JAK inhibitor was increased compared to that under TNF inhibitor treatment; however, these results have not yet been confirmed by a second investigation.

Perioperative management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases : Updated recommendations of the German Society for Rheumatology.

BACKGROUND: Prior to surgical interventions physicians and patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases remain concerned about interrupting or continuing anti-inflammatory medication. For this reason, the German Society for Rheumatology has updated its recommendations from 2014. METHODS: After a systematic literature search including publications up to 31 August 2021, the recommendations on the use of of glucocorticoids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and biologics (bDMARDs) were revised and recommendations on newer drugs and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs were added. RESULTS: The glucocorticoid dose should be reduced to as low as possible 2-3 months before elective surgery (in any case <10 mg/day) but should be kept stable 1-2 weeks before and on the day of surgery. In many cases csDMARDs can be continued, exceptions being a reduction of high methotrexate doses to ≤15 mg/week and wash-out of leflunomide if there is a high risk of infection. Azathioprine, mycophenolate and ciclosporin should be paused 1-2 days prior to surgery. Under bDMARDs surgery can be scheduled for the end of each treatment interval. For major interventions Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors should be paused for 3-4 days. Apremilast can be continued. If interruption is necessary, treatment should be restarted as soon as possible for all substances, depending on wound healing. CONCLUSION: Whether bDMARDs increase the perioperative risk of infection and the benefits and risks of discontinuation remain unclear based on the currently available evidence. To minimize the risk of a disease relapse under longer treatment pauses, in the updated recommendations the perioperative interruption of bDMARDs was reduced from at least two half-lives to one treatment interval.

[Innovative strategies for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]. / Neues zu Therapiestrategien bei der rheumatoiden Arthritis.

Besides excellent guidelines and newly developed highly effective drugs, evidence-based strategic use of these new drugs has especially contributed to enormous advances in rheumatoid arthritis treatment, apparent especially since 2000. Currently, the treat-to-target (T2T) strategy has proven to be the most successful in several studies and systematic reviews. The target is to achieve remission, which should be reached and sustained for an optimal outcome (i.e. stable over a long time period). If the initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment fails, the best strategy for continuing treatment is controversial, with swap or switch being open to debate (change within a class of drugs or change in the mechanism of action). Recent studies seem to indicate that switching to another mechanism of action is the most successful approach. A hotly discussed topic is the question whether DMARD treatment can or should be tapered when sustained remission has been achieved? Many patients wish for a reduction of drugs in cases of stable remission; however, the stable disease control might become destabilized by tapering. The main priority is the reduction or tapering of glucocorticoid treatment. When the decision for reduction of DMARD treatment is made together with the patient, a complete cessation bears a high risk of a flare, therefore, a careful step by step reduction of DMARD treatment should be preferred. In the case of a running combination, the question whether the conventional DMARD (mostly methotrexate), the biological (b)DMARD or targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD should be reduced first, must be decided on an individual basis. Most patients prefer to first reduce methotrexate and transfer to a monotherapy.

[Perioperative management of treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases : Updated recommendations of the German Society of Rheumatology]. / Perioperativer Umgang mit der Therapie von Patienten mit entzündlich rheumatischen Erkrankungen : Aktualisierte Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie.

BACKGROUND: Prior to surgical interventions physicians and patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases remain concerned about interrupting or continuing anti-inflammatory medication. For this reason, the German Society for Rheumatology has updated its recommendations from 2014. METHODS: After a systematic literature search including publications up to 31 August 2021, the recommendations on the use of of glucocorticoids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and biologics (bDMARDs) were revised and recommendations on newer drugs and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs were added. RESULTS: The glucocorticoid dose should be reduced to as low as possible 2-3 months before elective surgery (in any case <10 mg/day) but should be kept stable 1-2 weeks before and on the day of surgery. In many cases csDMARDs can be continued, exceptions being a reduction of high methotrexate doses to ≤15 mg/week and wash-out of leflunomide if there is a high risk of infection. Azathioprine, mycophenolate and ciclosporin should be paused 1-2 days prior to surgery. Under bDMARDs surgery can be scheduled for the end of each treatment interval. For major interventions Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors should be paused for 3-4 days. Apremilast can be continued. If interruption is necessary, treatment should be restarted as soon as possible for all substances, depending on wound healing. CONCLUSION: Whether bDMARDs increase the perioperative risk of infection and the benefits and risks of discontinuation remain unclear based on the currently available evidence. To minimize the risk of a disease relapse under longer treatment pauses, in the updated recommendations the perioperative interruption of bDMARDs was reduced from at least two half-lives to one treatment interval.

Updated recommendations of the German Society for Rheumatology for the care of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in times of SARS-CoV-2-methodology, key messages and justifying information.

A few days after the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was declared a pandemic, the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) compiled the first group of recommendations for the care of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in light of SARS-CoV-2/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These first recommendations were based on an expert consensus and were largely non-evidence-based. Now that the first scientific data from registries, cross-sectional studies, case reports and case series are available, the DGRh has developed a timely update. This update is based on a literature search of publications available through 15 June 2020 and addresses preventive measures (such as hygiene measures or vaccinations) and the use of immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive drugs. Driven by the commitment to let patients benefit from these new evidence-based recommendations as quickly as possible, the DGRh published the update in German on its homepage and in the Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie immediately after completion. Here we report the key recommendations to make them available to the international community, provide the scientific methodology used to develop the recommendations, give additional thoughts and advice for the management of patients with rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss our recommendations in the context of other international recommendations.

BENEFIT: real-world effectiveness of SB4 after transition from reference etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this non-interventional study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the etanercept biosimilar SB4 (BenepaliTM) following transition from reference etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Data were collected from clinical records of adult patients with stable RA or axSpA, in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Key outcomes included the change from transition to 3 and 6 months in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) for RA or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for axSpA. RESULTS: In total, 358 patients with RA and 199 patients with axSpA were enrolled. The mean individual change in disease score from transition was -0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.11, 0.08) at 3 months and 0.01 (95% CI -0.09, 0.11) at 6 months for DAS28, and -0.01 (95% CI -0.24, 0.21) at 3 months and -0.11 (95% CI -0.31, 0.10) at 6 months for BASDAI. In the RA cohort, 19 (5.3%) and 5 patients (1.4%) reported adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs), respectively. In the axSpA cohort, 12 (6.0%) and 2 patients (1.0%) reported adverse events and SAEs, respectively. One SAE of pneumonia (RA cohort) was considered to be related to SB4 administration. At 6 months post-transition, the SB4 retention rate was 90.8% (95% CI 87.2%, 93.4%) in the RA cohort and 92.4% (95% CI 87.5%, 95.4%) in the axSpA cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Transition from reference etanercept to SB4 is effective and safe in patients with stable RA and axSpA.

[Does methotrexate influence the efficacy of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2?] / Beeinflusst Methotrexat die Wirksamkeit der Impfung gegen SARS-CoV-2?

The question whether an ongoing treatment with methotrexate (MTX) actually impairs the protective immune response after SARS-CoV­2 vaccination cannot be answered with certainty on the basis of the available data. However, in view of the fact that a short discontinuation (once or twice) of the weekly MTX treatment in patients with a stable disease situation is probably associated with a comparatively low risk of inducing a flare of the underlying inflammatory rheumatic disease, such a short discontinuation of treatment can be considered according to the individual decision involving the patient and the treating rheumatologist. Nevertheless, discontinuation of MTX treatment does not appear to be absolutely necessary-especially since discontinuation would have to occur twice within a short period of time for most COVID-19 vaccines. Under no circumstances should longer periods of discontinuation of treatment be considered as this could result in a flare of the underlying disease. A more detailed assessment of the data situation and the resulting consequences (also with respect to DMARD) will follow soon in the updated recommendations for action of the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) on the management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in the context of the SARS-CoV­2 pandemic, especially COVID-19.

[Infection prophylaxis in rheumatic diseases]. / Infektionsprophylaxe bei rheumatologischen Erkrankungen.

Infections affect morbidity and mortality of patients suffering from rheumatic diseases in an important way. Risk of infection is influenced generally by age and existing comorbidities as well as especially by activity of the rheumatic disease and immunosuppressive treatment. Correspondingly best possible reduction of disease activity and elimination or at least successful treatment of comorbidities are able to reduce infection risk. Patients at high risk of infection should be identified and be monitored in an intensified way. Furthermore risk is influenced by antirheumatic treatment, e.g. enhanced by long-term glucocorticoid treatment, reduced by optimisied use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs leading to best possible disease control. Finally protective antibiotic or antiviral treatment (e.g. in case of latent tuberculosis or hepatitis) as well as optimised vaccination status are able to reduce risk of infection further.

[German Society of Rheumatology Recommendations for the management of glucocorticoid-induced Osteoporosis. German version]. / Empfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie zum Management der Glukokortikoid-induzierten Osteoporose.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are of substantial therapeutic importance in the treatment of inflammatory diseases, but are also associated with bone mineral density loss, osteoporosis, and fractures, especially with long-term use. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) in adult patients on long-term glucocorticoid (GC) treatment. METHODS: A systematic literature search (SLR) was conducted to synthesize the evidence for GIOP prevention and treatment options. Recommendations were developed based on SLR/level of evidence and by previously defined questions and in a structured group consensus process. RESULTS: Recommendations include supplementation with calcium and vitamin D under long-term GC therapy in adults. If specific osteologic treatment is indicated, we recommend bisphosphonates or denosumab as first-line treatment. If fracture risk is high, we recommend teriparatide as primary specific osteologic treatment. Denosumab should be used in cases of severe renal insufficiency, and specific osteologic treatment should not be given in pregnancy. For patients who have not reached the treatment goal, a switch to another class of specific osteologic drugs should be performed. We recommend re-evaluation after a treatment duration of 3-5 years or after termination of long-term GC treatment. CONCLUSION: This work aims to provide evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the best possible management of GIOP in Germany and to support treatment decisions.

German Society of Rheumatology recommendations for management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are of substantial therapeutic importance in the treatment of inflammatory diseases, but are also associated with bone mineral density loss, osteoporosis, and fractures, especially with long-term use. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) in adult patients on long-term glucocorticoid (GC) treatment. METHODS: A systematic literature search (SLR) was conducted to synthesize the evidence for GIOP prevention and treatment options. Recommendations were developed based on SLR/level of evidence and by previously defined questions and in a structured group consensus process. RESULTS: Recommendations include supplementation with calcium and vitamin D under long-term GC therapy in adults. If specific osteologic treatment is indicated, we recommend bisphosphonates or denosumab as first-line treatment. If fracture risk is high, we recommend teriparatide as primary specific osteologic treatment. Denosumab should be used in cases of severe renal insufficiency, and specific osteologic treatment should not be given in pregnancy. For patients who have not reached the treatment goal, a switch to another class of specific osteologic drugs should be performed. We recommend re-evaluation after a treatment duration of 3-5 years or after termination of long-term GC treatment. CONCLUSION: This work aims to provide evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the best possible management of GIOP in Germany and to support treatment decisions.

[Importance of mycophenolate mofetil for treatment of interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis]. / Stellenwert von Mycophenolat-Mofetil zur Behandlung der interstitiellen Lungenerkrankung bei systemischer Sklerose.

Interstitial lung disease in systemic sclerosis (SSc-ILD) is a frequent organ complication with considerable mortality. Therapeutically, immunosuppressants are primarily used, particularly cyclophosphamide (CYC) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF). Recently acquired data also showed an efficacy of the biologics rituximab and tocilizumab. The therapeutic options have most recently been expanded by the approval of the antifibrotic drug nintedanib. It is particularly beneficial in progressive fibrosing courses of ILD despite immunosuppression. The data from controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of CYC and MMF compiled in this review argue for a preferential use of MMF; however, the approval of MMF for this indication is still lacking. This is urgently needed for improved and simplified care of patients with SSc-ILD.

[Current state of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2]. / Aktueller Stand der Impfung gegen SARS-CoV-2.

On 21 December 2020 the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 (Comirnaty®, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany; Pfizer, New York City, NY, USA) as the first vaccine against SARS-CoV­2 in the European Union and the second vaccine (Moderna®, Moderna, Cambridge, MA, USA) followed on 6 January 2021. Many more approvals will follow within a short period of time. With the availability of the vaccination many questions have arisen for patients as well as for physicians, which are addressed as up to date as possible in this hot topic article.

[Recommendations of the German Society for Rheumatology for management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases in the context of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic - Update July 2020]. / Handlungsempfehlungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie e. V. für die Betreuung von Patienten mit entzündlich rheumatischen Erkrankungen im Rahmen der SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19-Pandemie ­ Update Juli 2020.

A few days after the SARS-CoV-2 infection was declared a pandemic, the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) compiled first recommendations for the care of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD). These first recommendations were based on an expert consensus and were largely non-evidence-based. Now that the first scientific data from registers, cross-sectional studies, case reports and case series are available, the present update is intended to update the previous recommendations and to add new findings. The current recommendations are based on a literature search of publications available up to 15 June 2020 and address preventive measures (such as hygiene measures or vaccinations) and the use of immunomodulatory/immunosuppressive drugs. An important goal of the current recommendations is also to prevent harm to patients with IRD through unjustified restriction of care. The DGRh will continue to update its recommendations in the case of new aspects and will publish them as well as further information on the COVID-19 pandemic on its homepage ( www.dgrh.de ) in an ongoing process.

Early and late responses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug inadequate responders and were treated with tocilizumab or switched to rituximab: an open-label phase 3 trial (MIRAI).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate early and late responses in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating tocilizumab and early tocilizumab non-responders who switched to rituximab. METHODS: In this open-label, non-randomised phase 3 study, RA patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg intravenously at study begin and weeks 4, 8 and 12. After evaluation at week 16, early responders (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] <2.6) completed the study; partial responders (DAS28-ESR decrease >1.2 or DAS28-ESR ≥2.6-≤3.2) were to continue tocilizumab through week 28; non-responders (DAS28-ESR decrease ≤1.2) switched to rituximab (1000 mg, weeks 16 and 18) with safety follow-up through week 66. RESULTS: Of 519 patients, 222 (42.8%) achieved early DAS28-ESR remission at week 16; 240 patients continued treatment, 213 (41.0%) received tocilizumab, and 27 (5.2%) switched to rituximab. At week 32 DAS28-ESR remission was achieved by 117/213 patients (54.9%) who continued tocilizumab and 4/27 patients (14.8%) who switched to rituximab; good EULAR response was achieved by 66.7% and 25.9% and CDAI remission by 19.2% and 14.8% of patients, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred through week 32 in 45/490 patients (9.2%) who received tocilizumab (serious infections, 2.7%) and through week 66 in 8/27 patients (29.6%) who switched to rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: Early response to tocilizumab was observed in 42.8% of patients. Half of early partial responders benefitted from continuing tocilizumab. Switching non-responders to rituximab seems feasible. No new safety signals were observed in patients treated with tocilizumab or switched to rituximab.

Patient-reported outcomes with golimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: non-interventional study GO-NICE in Germany.

The TNF inhibitor golimumab (GLM) is a treatment option in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The GO-NICE study assessed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients newly treated with monthly GLM 50 mg subcutaneously (SC) under real-life conditions in Germany. A prospective non-interventional study with 24-month observation per patient was conducted at 158 sites. Available for analysis were 1,458 patients, 474 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA: 54.9 ± 13.4 years, 72.8% females, 60.4% biologic-naïve), 501 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA: 50.5 ± 12.1 years, 54.1% females; 47.5% biologic-naïve), and 483 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS: 43.6 ± 12.3 years, 66.5% males; 58.4% biologic-naïve). A total of 664 patients completed follow-up to month 24. An improvement of QoL by EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L was seen after 6 months and was maintained over 24 months. The patients' health state today (EQ visual analog scale) improved statistically significantly (p < 0.0001 vs. BL) from 51.0 at baseline (BL) to 63.4 (RA), from 48.4 to 64.3 (PsA) and from 46.8 to 66.5 (AS). Functional ability (FFbH) improved significantly (p < 0.003 vs. BL) from BL 68.2 to 76.1 points (RA), from 69.0 to 76.8 points (PsA), and from 69.0 to 78.5 points (AS). The mean FACIT-Fatigue score increased significantly (p < 0.0001 vs. BL) from BL 32.4 to 38.3 points (RA), from 30.0 to 35.9 points (PsA), and from 29.9 to 37.9 points after 24 months (AS); p < 0.0001 vs. BL each. On treatment with GLM SC once monthly, significant improvements in patient-reported QoL parameters were noted in a very similar manner in all three diseases.Trial registration ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01313858. Registered March 14, 2011; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01313858 .

Ankylosing spondylitis causes high burden to patients and the healthcare system: results from a German claims database analysis.

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.