Search

Introduction/objectives: The ASCORE study on treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed better retention and clinical response rates for abatacept as first-line versus later-line therapy. This post hoc analysis of ASCORE assessed 2-year retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland., Methods: Adults with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were assessed. Primary endpoint was abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportions of patients with low disease activity (LDA)/remission per Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (≤ 3.2), Simplified Disease Activity Index (≤ 11), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (≤ 10). Outcomes were analyzed by treatment line and serostatus., Results: For the pooled cohort, the 2-year abatacept retention rate was 47.6%; retention was highest in biologic-naïve patients (50.5% [95% confidence interval 44.9, 55.9]). Patients seropositive for both anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF; + / +) at baseline had a higher 2-year abatacept retention rate than patients with single seropositivity for either APCA or RF or double-seronegativity (- / -), irrespective of treatment line. At 2 years, a higher proportion of patients who were biologic-naïve were in LDA/remission than patients with one or ≥ two prior biologics., Conclusion: A higher proportion of patients with + / + RA (compared with - / - RA) had abatacept retention after 2 years. Early identification of patients with seropositive RA may facilitate a precision-medicine approach to RA treatment, leading to a higher proportion of patients in LDA/remission., Trial Registration Number: NCT02090556; date registered: March 18, 2014 (retrospectively registered). Key Points • This post hoc analysis of a German-speaking subset of European patients with RA from the global ASCORE study (NCT02090556) showed that retention of SC abatacept within this subset was 47.6%, with good clinical outcomes after 2 years. • Patients with double-seropositive RA (ACPA and RF positive) had higher retention of abatacept than patients with double-seronegative RA (ACPA and RF negative). Retention and clinical responses were highest for patients who were biologic-naïve compared with patients who had one or ≥ two prior biologic treatments. • These real-world data may be useful for clinicians in informing individualized treatment pathways for patients with RA, and fostering superior disease control and clinical outcomes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To evaluate retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept over 2 years in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in the Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine clinical practicE (ASCORE) study., Methods: Patients with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were enrolled in the international, observational, prospective multicentre ASCORE study into biologic-naïve or ≥ 1 prior biologic failure cohorts., Primary Endpoint: abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response rates based on DAS28 (ESR), low disease activity and/or remission according to DAS28 (ESR; ≤ 3.2/ < 2.6), SDAI (≤ 11/ ≤ 3.3), CDAI (≤ 10/ ≤ 2.8), and Boolean criteria. Retention rate by baseline serostatus was evaluated post hoc., Results: Overall, 47% of patients remained on abatacept for 2 years, irrespective of treatment line. Higher abatacept retention rates were associated with lower prior biologic exposure. Generally, clinical outcomes showed that the proportion of patients with low disease activity/remission was higher in biologic-naïve patients (vs biologic-failure) and similar in those with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures. In patients on treatment at 2 years, good/moderate EULAR response rates of ~ 80% were consistently noted irrespective of prior biologic exposure. Across treatment lines, retention was greater in patients with seropositive (vs seronegative) RA. Patients with rheumatoid factor/anti-citrullinated protein antibody single-positive RA who were bio-naïve had higher retention than patients who were bio-experienced., Conclusions: In the ASCORE study, SC abatacept retention was 47% at 2 years with good clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting. Abatacept retention and clinical response rates were higher in patients who received abatacept as an earlier- versus later-line biologic drug treatment and in those with seropositive RA., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02090556., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Cytokines and associated intracellular signal cascades play a major role in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases. Janus kinases (JAK) are part of these intracellular signal transduction processes. A relatively new drug group of targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARD) are JAK inhibitors (JAKi) and are a promising treatment approach for autoimmune diseases., Efficacy: Hitherto, three JAKis, Tofacitinib, Baricitinib and Upadacitinib, have been approved for treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in the USA, Switzerland and the EU. Filgotinib, another JAKi, also showed promising results in the treatment of RA. Furthermore, tofacitinib received approval for the treatment of ulcerative colitis and psoriatic arthritis. In addition to the JAKis already mentioned, several other JAKis, e.g. filgotinib and peficitinib, are being and were investigated in various studies on indications, such as atopic dermatitis, ankylosing spondylitis and systemic lupus erythematosus., Safety: Being immunosuppressants, JAKis show an elevated incidence of severe infections, comparable to biologics. The increased reactivation of varicella zoster virus is especially noteworthy. Under JAKi treatment cytopenia is also more frequent. Lymphopenia under JAKi treatment is of particular clinical relevance because of its association with an increase in the number of severe infections. Furthermore, an elevated risk of thromboembolic events, particularly pulmonary embolism has been noted. The risks concerning metabolic alterations and the occurrence of malignant neoplasms are comparable to those under treatment with biologics.

Introduction: AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries., Method: Baseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries., Results: In the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163)., Conclusions: In the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort., Key Points: • Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns. • In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. • Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries. • Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.

Objective: There are limited data on therapy selection and switching in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This 18 country, real-world study assessed use and switching of immunomodulatory therapy (biologic/apremilast), the extent of treatment failure and its association with reduced physical functioning, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI)., Methods: PsA patients under routine care and their treating physicians provided demographics, current therapy, reasons for switching, duration of first therapy, HRQoL, HAQ-DI, and WPAI. Current immunomodulatory therapy was determined as "failing" if, after ≥ 3 months, physician-rated disease severity had worsened, remained severe, was "unstable/deteriorating," or they were dissatisfied with disease control and/or did not consider treatment a "success.", Results: Included were 3714 PsA patients; 1455 (40.6%) had never received immunomodulatory therapy; 1796 (50.1%) had ever received 1 immunomodulatory therapy and 331 (9.2%) ≥ 1. Lack of efficacy with first immunomodulatory therapy was the most common reason for switching; patients whose physicians indicated "primary lack of efficacy" as the reason, switched after a mean of 9.4 months. Patients currently failing immunomodulator therapies (n = 246) had poorer HRQoL compared with treatment success (n = 1472) measured by EQ-5D-3L (0.60 vs 0.77%; P < 0.0001); SF-36 PCS (40.8% vs 46.1%; P < 0.0001) MCS (41.1% vs 45.3%; P < 0.0001). Physical functioning, activity, and work productivity were also more impaired (HAQ-DI: 0.88 vs 0.56; activity impairment: 46.7% vs 29.7%; overall work impairment: 35.4% vs 26.1%; all P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Poor treatment response in PsA is associated with substantial negative patient impact. In cases of primary treatment failure, timely switching is needed.

Objectives: Evaluate abatacept retention over 2 years in the AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION) study., Method: ACTION was an international, observational study of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated intravenous abatacept. Crude abatacept retention rates over 2 years were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses in biologic-naive and -failure patients. Clinically relevant risk factors and significant prognostic factors for retention were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards multivariable model., Results: Overall, 2350/2364 enrolled patients were evaluable; 673 (28.6%) were biologic naive and 1677 (71.4%) had prior biologic failure (1 biologic, 728/1677 [43.4%]; ≥ 2 biologics, 949/1677 [56.6%]). Abatacept retention rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) at 2 years was 47.9% (45.7, 50.0): 54.5% (50.4, 58.3) for biologic-naive vs 45.2% (42.7, 47.7) for biologic-failure patients (log-rank P < 0.001). For patients with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures, respectively, retention rates (95% CI) were 50.2% (46.3, 53.9) vs 41.3% (38.0, 44.6; log-rank P < 0.001). Main reasons for discontinuation (biologic-naive vs biologic-failure, respectively) were lack of efficacy (61.4 vs 67.7%) and safety (21.3 vs 21.2%). Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) double positivity versus negativity were predictive of higher retention in both biologic-naive (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] 0.71 [0.53, 0.96]; P = 0.019) and biologic-failure patients (HR [95% CI] 0.76 [0.62, 0.94]; P = 0.035)., Conclusions: Abatacept initiation as earlier vs later line of therapy in RA may achieve higher 2-year retention rates. RF and anti-CCP seropositivity could predict increased abatacept retention, irrespective of treatment line., Trial Registration: NCT02109666.

The article listed above was initially published with incorrect copyright information. Upon publication of this Correction, the copyright of this article changed to "The Author(s)". The original article has been corrected.

Background: Medication-based strategies to treat rheumatoid arthritis are crucial in terms of outcome. They aim at preventing joint destruction, loss of function and disability by early and consistent inhibition of inflammatory processes., Objective: Achieving consensus about evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in Germany., Methods: Following a systematic literature research, a structured process among expert rheumatologists was used to reach consensus., Results: The results of the consensus process can be summed up in 6 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. There are several new issues compared to the version of 2012, such as differentiated adjustments to the therapeutic regime according to time point and extent of treatment response, the therapeutic goal of achieving remission as assessed by means of the simplified disease activity index (SDAI) as well as the potential use of targeted synthetic DMARDs (JAK inhibitors) and suggestions for a deescalating in case of achieving a sustained remission. Methotrexate still plays the central role at the beginning of the treatment and as a combination partner in the further treatment course. When treatment response to methotrexate is inadequate, either switching to or combining with another conventional synthetic DMARD is an option in the absence of unfavourable prognostic factors. Otherwise biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs are recommended according to the algorithm. Rules for deescalating treatment with glucocorticoids and-where applicable-DMARDs give support for the management of patients who have reached a sustained remission., Discussion: The new guidelines set up recommendations for RA treatment in accordance with the treat-to-target principle. Modern disease-modifying drugs, now including also JAK inhibitors, are available in an algorithm.

This post hoc analysis of ACQUIRE (NCT00559585) explored the effect of baseline body mass index (BMI) on the pharmacokinetics of and clinical response to subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). ACQUIRE was a phase 3b, 6-month, double-blind, double-dummy study in which patients with RA were randomized (1:1) to SC (fixed - dose; 125 mg/week) or IV (weight-tiered; ~ 10 mg/kg/month) abatacept plus methotrexate. In this analysis, minimum abatacept plasma concentration (C min ) was measured at 3 and 6 months, and clinical remission over 6 months was assessed by Disease Activity Score 28 (C-reactive protein; DAS28 [CRP], < 2.6), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI, ≤ 3.3), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI, ≤ 2.8). Data were stratified by baseline BMI (underweight/normal, < 25 kg/m 2 ; overweight, 25 to < 30 kg/m 2 ; obese, ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ) and administration route. Of the 1456/1457 patients for whom baseline BMIs were available, 526 (36%; SC 265, IV 261) patients were underweight/normal, 497 (34%; SC 249, IV 248) were overweight, and 433 (30%; SC 221, IV 212) were obese. Median C min abatacept concentration was ≥ 10 μg/mL (efficacy threshold) at 3 and 6 months in > 90% of patients across BMI groups with both administration routes. DAS28 (CRP), SDAI, and CDAI remission rates at 6 months were similar across BMI groups and 95% confidence intervals overlapped at all time points in both separate and pooled SC/IV analyses. Therapeutic concentrations of abatacept and clinical remission rates using stringent criteria were similar across patient BMIs and administration routes.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have dramatically changed the face of cancer treatment and are gaining in importance. The ICIs have now been approved for the treatment of advanced cancers, including melanoma, non-small-cell and small cell lung cancers, renal cell carcinoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, head and neck cancers and urothelial carcinoma and further indications are to be expected. The organs most affected by an autoimmune reaction are the intestines, the musculoskeletal system, skin, endocrine organs, the liver and the lungs. As the indications for immune checkpoint blockade expand and ICIs are used in combination, it becomes increasingly more important for rheumatologists to recognize immune-related adverse events (irAEs), their connection to cancer immunotherapy and how to treat these events appropriately. The role of rheumatologists will take on growing importance as immunotherapies become more common as standard treatment of cancer and when used earlier in the course of the disease. Previously controlled autoimmune diseases can deteriorate when using ICIs, so this is a consideration when evaluating patients. Increased awareness of inflammatory arthritis, as well as other rheumatic manifestations as an adverse association with cancer immunotherapies, is imperative for making the diagnosis. Treatment algorithms are based on the severity of symptoms but in the case of rheumatic disease, treatment often needs to be tailored to the individual. The general strategy for evaluation and management of irAEs includes a thorough evaluation for infections. Mild irAE may be self-limiting, while more severe reactions are generally steroid responsive, albeit with potentially high dosage requirements.

Due to the increasing prevalence of gout, particularly in old age, the disease is becoming of increasing importance in Germany. Gout is one of the most common forms of recurrent inflammatory arthritis and is induced by the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in synovial fluid and other tissues. The principal goals of therapy in chronic gout are the symptomatic treatment of the acute joint inflammation and the causal treatment of the underlying metabolic cause, the hyperuricemia. Only a consistent and permanent reduction of the serum uric acid level ultimately results in an efficient avoidance of further gout attacks and therefore the prevention of structural damage. Due to an often inadequate treatment of gout, the target of healing the disease is often not achieved. A correct and timely diagnosis and adequate assessment of comorbidities associated with gout are, however, of substantial importance for patient and physician to achieve remission of the disease. In order to create a solid basis for a timely and effective treatment of affected patients, in 2016 the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) initiated the development of S2e guidelines on gouty arthritis for specialists. This article summarizes these S2e guidelines on the management of gouty arthritis in the specialist sector.

Genitourinary neoplasms are relatively common and the frequency increases with age. Due to demographic changes more patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases will have concomitant genitourinary tumors or they will develop them under antirheumatic therapy. In such cases, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and immunosuppressive therapy have to be carefully balanced on an individual basis. Based on the limited evidence available large increases in the risks from conventional and/or biological DMARDs for patients with genitourinary malignancies appear to be unlikely for most situations. In addition to these more common situations paraneoplastic symptoms in the musculoskeletal system can occur due to genitourinary malignancies. Moreover, novel drugs with immunostimulating activity for some genitourinary tumors may provoke autoimmune symptoms and thus present new challenges for interdisciplinary cooperation between rheumatologists and uro-oncologists. In this review, the diagnostic procedures, therapies and follow-up of cancers in the field of urology are delineated according to the current German and European guidelines. We describe the core issues that both urologists and rheumatologists should bear in mind. Direct communication, routine exchange and involvement of rheumatologists in interdisciplinary tumor boards should improve future treatment quality of our joint patients.

Despite a large number of approved therapies demonstrating efficacy in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, only 60-85 % of patients with the indications for rheumatoid arthritis are adequately treated in Germany. Additionally, approved therapies for other immune-mediated diseases are often entirely lacking, indicating the great medical need for the development of new innovative therapies in this specialized field. The development of new drugs is expensive due to the high costs of conducting clinical trials in all phases of development up to obtaining approval; therefore, pharmaceutical companies are looking for ways to save costs in the particular developmental stages. Although the classical regions for drug development (i.e. western Europe, the USA and Japan) offer both a high level of data quality and a good infrastructure to conduct clinical trials due to high standards of education and quality, clinical trials are expensive in these regions. Beside high costs, the comparatively low recruitment rates in these regions are one of the main reasons for the shifting of drug developmental stages from classical regions to eastern European, Latin American and Asian countries, which provide services for drug development and high recruitment rates for comparatively less money. However, there are many strong arguments for the participation of regions in western Europe, especially German sites in clinical trials. In this article these arguments are discussed and possible solutions and strategies for conducting and compensation of study centers in Germany for clinical trials in the field of rheumatology are provided.

Background: This article presents the design of clinical trials for the development of biosimilars in the European Union and the United States, with special focus on inflammatory diseases., Methods: All information available in PubMed and the Internet relating to the clinical development of biosimilars in inflammatory rheumatic conditions (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis) was collated. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites were screened for guidelines on biosimilars., Results: More than 10 years ago the EMA began to publish guidelines for the development of biosimilars and several biosimilars have now been approved. In the USA the FDA has published guidance for the nonclinical and clinical development of biosimilars but until early 2015 no biosimilar had been approved., Conclusion: Clinical trials aim to resolve uncertainties that may remain following nonclinical development regarding the similarity of the proposed biosimilar with the reference product. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies are essential for early clinical development and further phase 3 clinical studies. Factors to be considered in the clinical process include study population, design, endpoints, sample size, duration and analytical methods.

Background: The importance of depressive diseases in the treatment of rheumatism patients cannot be denied. It is well-known from publications in the English speaking literature that the proportion of depressive diseases lies between 10% and 45% in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, clearly increased numbers can also be seen in a direct comparison with corresponding prevalence rates in the normal population for other diseases included in the category of rheumatism., Objective: This manuscript focusses on the possibilities and challenges in measuring states of depressive mood that might serve as an indicator of depressive diseases in the context of treatment of rheumatism., Material and Methods: A search of the current literature was carried out and the results were evaluated., Results: Starting from appropriate background knowledge, the current state of science is discussed while subsequently taking a closer look at a choice of internationally recognized assessment tools which are feasible for use in rheumatology. Finally, this overview is accompanied by hints for hands-on practice and suggestions on how to respond to conspicuous test results indicative of a depressive mood., Discussion and Conclusion: The potential benefits of appropriate screening with measurement instruments are considered to be high for rheumatism patients. The measurement tools presented must be suitably selected for the individual purpose and for each rheumatology institution. In view of test application consideration must be given not only to the total score but also to the individual responses to test items. In cases of conspicuous test results the further approach must be agreed together with the patient and by choosing adequate treatment options for the situation. In cases of acute suicidal tendencies acceptance, care and support are of key importance, while the precautionary presentation in a specialist clinic must be initiated.

Protein kinase inhibitors represent a novel and promising approach to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). By targeting intracellular signaling pathways of cytokine-mediated reactions, these substances are able to interfere with critical immune processes that underly the pathology of RA. With tofacitinib, the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor has been approved in the USA, as well as in Switzerland and other countries. Several other substances are currently undergoing phase II or phase III trials.A crucial question that will shape the future of these new drugs is whether they are safe and in particular, whether they are safer than biological therapies. This article provides an overview on current data concerning the efficacy and safety of the most promising substances and discusses the potential future role of intracellular kinase inhibitors.

The social recognition of depression in general and as a comorbidity in illnesses such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has essentially changed in recent years. Previous studies have shown that the occurrence of depression in RA patients is closely related to the individual ways of coping with disease and the corresponding impact of disease on daily life. Patients who are experiencing feelings of helplessness while facing the illness are prone to depressive disorders, especially if effective strategies for managing the impact of disease are lacking. Tools for early recognition of depression include instruments such as patient questionnaires or interview protocols which should be interpreted with caution due to the overlap of symptoms arising from RA and depression. A supplemental cognitive behavioral intervention in addition to medication with antidepressive drugs provides an opportunity to identify the underlying cause of depression and learn about effective coping strategies to at least partially maintain self-control of RA.

Following the EULAR recommendations published in 2010 German guidelines for the medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis were developed based on an update of the systematic literature search and expert consensus. Methotrexate is the standard treatment option at the time of diagnosis, preferably in combination with low dose glucocorticoids. Combined disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) therapy should be considered in patients not responding within 12 weeks. Treatment with biologicals should be initiated in patients with persistent high activity no later than 6 months after conventional treatment and in exceptional situations (e.g. early destruction or unfavorable prognosis) even earlier. If treatment with biologicals remains ineffective, changing to another biological is recommended after 3-6 months. In cases of long-standing remission a controlled reduction of medical treatment can be considered.

Abatacept is a soluble fusion protein comprising the extracellular domain of human CTLA4 linked to the modified Fc portion of human IgG(1). It is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in combination with methotrexate and juvenile chronic arthritis by blocking the co-stimulatory signal required for full T-cell activation. Abatacept has added to the growing armamentarium of targeted therapies for RA, including the challenging group of RA patients who are refractory to TNF-alpha blockade. To date, abatacept has its main application in cases failing to respond to TNF-alpha blockade. In several studies, the efficacy and safety of abatacept was not only shown for TNF-IR patients, but also for DMARD-IR patients. Recently, the EU has approved abatacept in combination with methotrexate in DMARD-IR patients. The significant and similar response rates in TNF-alpha blockade failure to those observed in only DMARD failure implies that the pathways targeted with the two treatments remain distinct. In terms of safety profile, incidence rates of malignancy in the abatacept trials were consistent with those in a comparable RA population. The rate of opportunistic infections does not seem to be increased in patients treated with abatacept.

The success of the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis depends primarily on early diagnosis. In most cases, basic therapy begins with methotrexate. Depending on the stage and course of the disease (radiographically detected early erosion and/or progression), basic immunosuppressive therapy can be combined or supplemented with cytokine antagonists. Furthermore, for specific indications, several alternative active substances (DMARD monotherapies) are available. Today the goal of therapy is always remission.

Our aim was to analyze the existing body of evidence about inpatient care of patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The report was induced by the executive board of the German Society of Rheumatology which assigned the "Oliver-Sangha committee" to dissect and point out the tasks of inpatient care during the next few years. A systemic search of the literature was performed covering the years 1966 to 2001. A total of 16 studies were selected and thoroughly appraised in a systematic way. Four randomized controlled trials addressing the question could be identified. All of them included only patients in a clinical condition allowing outpatient care as well. Two studies indicate some advantage of inpatient care in comparison to outpatient treatment. Two studies, both equivalence studies from design, reveal that RA patients do not generally experience additional benefit from hospitalization. Consideration of two additional cohort studies demonstrates the increased need of inpatient care in RA patients. None of the studies was derived from the German health care system. Emergency cases were not the subject of any of these trials. General statements about the value of inpatient care of RA patients can not be drawn from the analyzed studies. The committee makes suggestions for future investigations that may help to answer this important question considering the special circumstances of the German health care system.