Combination therapy with sulfasalazine and methotrexate is more effective than either drug alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a suboptimal response to sulfasalazine: results from the double-blind placebo-controlled MASCOT study

Methotrexate monotherapy versus methotrexate combination therapy with non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate (MTX) is among the most effective disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with less toxicity and better tolerability.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of MTX monotherapy compared to MTX combination with non-biologic DMARDs in adult with RA.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified in MEDLINE (1950 to 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 2009), the Cochrane Controlled trials Registry (CENTRAL) (up to 2009), the American and European scientific meeting abstracts 2005-9, the reference lists of all relevant studies, letters, and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing MTX monotherapy versus MTX combined with other non-biologic DMARDs of at least 12 weeks of trial duration in adult RA patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently identified eligible studies,extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias of relevant studies.The efficacy analysis was stratified into 3 groups based on previous DMARDs use: DMARD naive, MTX inadequate response, and non-MTX DMARDs inadequate response. The toxicity analysis was stratified by DMARD combination and pooled across trials for each combination. Our prespecified primary analysis was based on total withdrawal rates for efficacy or toxicity.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 19 trials (2,025 patients) from 6,938 citations were grouped by the type of patients randomised. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy; withdrawals for lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% CI.0.70 to 1.93, absolute risk difference(ARD) 5%, 95%CI-3% to 13%). Trials in MTX or non-MTX DMARDs inadequate responder patients also showed no difference in withdrawal rates between the MTX combo versus mono groups with RR 0.86 95% CI 0.49 to1.51, ARD -2 %, 95% CI-13 % to 8 % and RR 0.75 95% CI 0.41 to 1.35, ARD -10%, 95% CI -31% to 11%, respectively. Significant reductions of pain and improvement in physical function (measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire or HAQ) were found in the MTX combination group, but only in MTX-inadequate responders (absolute risk difference -9.72%, 95%CI -14.7% to -4.75% for pain and mean difference (MD) -0.28, 95%CI -0.36 to -0.21 (0-3) for HAQ).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When the balance of efficacy and toxicity is taken into account, the moderate level of evidence from our systematic review showed no statistically significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy. Trials are needed that compare currently used MTX doses and combination therapies.

Methotrexate therapy in rheumatoid arthritis after failure to sulphasalazine: to switch or to add?

OBJECTIVES

MTX, either alone or in combination with SSZ, is effective in the treatment of RA. Trials have shown that, after SSZ failure, the addition of MTX to SSZ is more effective than a switch to MTX. Whether this is also the case in daily practice has not been analysed yet. In this study, we compared the efficacy of a switch to MTX monotherapy with that of the addition of MTX to SSZ in the daily clinical practice of RA patients who had failed SSZ monotherapy in the Nijmegen RA Inception Cohort.

METHODS

For this study, 230 patients who failed to SSZ monotherapy were followed for up to 52 weeks. A total of 124 underwent a switch to MTX alone, whereas 106 patients received the combination of MTX and SSZ. The primary outcome measure was the mean change in the disease activity score (DAS28) after 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups showed a significant decrease in DAS28 after 24 weeks, which was similar in both groups. Drug survival analysis showed that the chance to stop with a DMARD within 52 weeks was higher in the MTX-SSZ group (P <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients who failed to SSZ the clinical efficacy of a switch to MTX monotherapy was similar to that of the addition of MTX, suggesting that in daily clinical practice a switch to MTX is a good option for patients with an inadequate response to SSZ.

Facilitating the Use of COBRA Combination Therapy in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Pilot Implementation Study

Objective.

COBRA combination therapy is well known and has uncontested efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, it is infrequently applied in Dutch clinical practice. Based on qualitative research on opinions of physicians and patients towards COBRA therapy, our study describes the development and pilot testing of an implementation package to facilitate prescription and use of COBRA therapy in early RA.

Methods.

The implementation package was developed to address specific barriers towards prescription of COBRA therapy and comprised informational handouts (an information booklet and leaflet for patients), preprinted prescription orders, and background information on COBRA therapy for the rheumatologists. Twenty-two rheumatologists agreed to participate, including the arthritis nurse where available. Rheumatologists, nurses, and patients were asked to record their experience. All Dutch arthritis nurses were invited to an educational session on COBRA therapy.

Results.

Sixteen rheumatologists accompanied by 10 arthritis nurses used the material to prescribe COBRA therapy to a total of 27 patients. Rheumatologists and nurses both gave high marks to the supplied materials. Eighty-eight percent of rheumatologists reported that the material sped up the prescription process, and 65% indicated they would prescribe COBRA therapy more frequently if these materials were available routinely. Patients expressed great satisfaction with the information handouts, rating it 2.8 (standard deviation 0.5) on a scale of −3 (very negative) to +3 (very positive). Most patients (89%) planned to keep the information booklet as a reference and 70% used it as a tool to remember the correct intake of medication. The attitude and perceived capability of nurses towards the guidance of patients with RA receiving COBRA therapy was improved through a brief educational intervention.

Conclusion.

Rheumatologists, patients, and arthritis nurses all highly appreciated the implementation package and indicated that its availability would increase uptake of COBRA therapy.

Methotrexate in combination with sulfasalazine is more effective in rheumatoid arthritis patients who failed sulfasalazine than in patients naive to both drugs

OBJECTIVES

For pharmacological reasons, the effect of the combination of MTX and SSZ may be different in RA patients who are naïve to these drugs compared to patients with an insufficient response to one of them. Therefore, we compared the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the combination of MTX and SSZ in naïve patients and in patients with an insufficient response to SSZ.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify RCTs that compared the MTX-SSZ combination to either drug alone. The databases MEDLINE and the Cochrane Clinical Trials registry were searched from 1966 up to April 2007. The efficacy of the single therapeutic agents or their combination was assessed using the mean change in the disease activity score (DAS) and the ACR improvement criteria.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were identified to compare the efficacy of the combination MTX-SSZ to the efficacy of either drug alone. Two parallel trials were performed with patients naïve to both drugs and two add-on trials were performed in SSZ failures. In the trials with naïve patients, the mean DAS changes for the combination MTX and SSZ pointed to a sub-additive efficacy. In the trials with patients who previously failed to SSZ, the mean DAS changes for the combination MTX and SSZ indicated additive efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

In RA, addition of MTX to SSZ is a therapeutic option in SSZ failures, whereas combination of MTX and SSZ in DMARD-naïve patients has no added value.

Effects of low-dose mizoribine pulse therapy in combination with methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients with an insufficient response to methotrexate

The aim was to determine the efficacy of low-dose intermittent pulse administration of mizoribine (MZR), a purine synthesis inhibitor, in combination with methotrexate (MTX) to control the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients with an insufficient clinical response to MTX alone. Twenty-seven patients with active RA, despite treatment with MTX, were enrolled and given MZR in combination with MTX and continued for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was assessment of clinical improvements using the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. Administering MZR to RA patients with an insufficient response to MTX produced significant improvements in the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) after 8-24 weeks. In addition, after 24 weeks, 60.0% and 8.0% of patients had achieved moderate and good responses, respectively, and there were significant reductions in Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire and serum matrix metalloproteinase-3 levels. The present preliminary study suggests that low-dose MZR in combination with MTX is well tolerated and provides both clinical and economic benefits.

What have we learnt about the development and progression of early RA from RCTs?

Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) use the core set of measures proposed by consensus meetings in the 1990s; these include tender and swollen joint counts, pain, global assessments, disability, and acute-phase responders such as the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Trials in early RA generally assess three key outcomes based on this core data set: symptoms and signs of inflammatory arthritis, progression of disability, and erosive damage. Adverse events are also recorded. This chapter considers the lessons learned from the various trials in terms of benefits and adverse effects of different treatment regimens.

The efficacy of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis in local patients of Karachi

The primary objective of the study is to assess the efficacy of the 'Disease Modifying AntiRheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) on the disease activity in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in the local patients of Karachi. The secondary objective is to evaluate whether the combination of two concurrent DMARDs (Combination Therapy) is superior to a single DMARD (Mono-therapy). This is an open labeled retrospective case series. One hundred and five consecutive patients fulfilling 1987 ACR criteria for the diagnosis of RA were initially selected from the case notes of out patients department. Sixty nine patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were finally recruited for analysis. Details of the Tender Joint Count (TJC), Swolen Joint Count (SJC), Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and ESR were obtained at six weeks, three months, six months and one year. Out of the 69 patients studied 48 were in the mono-therapy group and 21 in the combination therapy group. Methotrexate (MTX) was the most commonly used single DMARD (75%) as well as the most frequent component of the combination groups (85%). The TJC, SJC and PGA analyses of all patients show that DMARDs are effective agents for clinically controlling RA activity. The speed of their beneficial effect is slow and unlike analgesics and NSAIDS, may take up to six weeks to start working. The 6 week responses showed 32.49% improvement in TJC, 33.19% improvement in SJC and 59% better responses in PGA. This response continued to show further improvement and at six months when TJC improved by 63.41%, SJC by 53.21% and PGA with 81% better responses. After 6 months the response reached a plateau but nevertheless maintained until 1 year with improvements in TJC by 66.23%, SJC by 56.48% and PGA with 88.23% better responses. The changes in ESR did not go parallel with the other three outcome measures. The mean baseline ESR of 56 reduced to 44 at 6 weeks but rose again gradually to 54 at 1 year. The sub-group analysis did not show the overall superiority of combination therapy over mono-therapy. DMARDs are effective in controlling disease activity in RA. Their effect starts slowly over 6 week and may take up to 6 months to show full benefits. The beneficial effect was maintained for at least 1 year. Sub-group analysis did not show any advantage of combination therapy over mono-therapy in this series of patients. Methotrexote being the most frequently used DMARDs in both groups and being most cost effective agent seems to be the most useful drug in RA in the developing world.

Efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy versus MTX combination therapy with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy compared with MTX combination with non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

Method:

A systematic review of randomised trials comparing MTX alone and in combination with other non-biological DMARDs was carried out. Trials were identified in Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ACR/EULAR meeting abstracts. Primary outcomes were withdrawals for adverse events or lack of efficacy.

Results:

A total of 19 trials (2025 patients) from 6938 citations were grouped by the type of patients randomised. Trials in DMARD naive patients showed no significant advantage of the MTX combination versus monotherapy; withdrawals for lack of efficacy or toxicity were similar in both groups (relative risk (RR) = 1.16; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93). Trials in MTX or non-MTX DMARD inadequate responder patients also showed no difference in withdrawal rates between the MTX combo versus mono groups (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.51 and RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.41 to 1.35), but in one study the specific combination of MTX with sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine showed a better efficacy/toxicity ratio than MTX alone with RR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.65). Adding leflunomide to MTX non-responders improved efficacy but increased the risk of gastrointestinal side effects and liver toxicity. Withdrawals for toxicity were most significant with ciclosporin and azathioprine combinations.

Conclusion:

In DMARD naive patients the balance of efficacy/toxicity favours MTX monotherapy. In DMARD inadequate responders the evidence is inconclusive. Trials are needed that compare currently used MTX doses and combination therapies.

Multinational evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis: integrating systematic literature research and expert opinion of a broad international panel of rheumatologists in the 3E Initiative

Objectives:

To develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice in rheumatic disorders.

Methods:

751 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 3E (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative of 2007–8 consisting of three separate rounds of discussions and Delphi votes. Ten clinical questions concerning the use of methotrexate in rheumatic disorders were formulated. A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and 2005–7 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism meeting abstracts was conducted. Selected articles were systematically reviewed and the evidence was appraised according to the Oxford levels of evidence. Each country elaborated a set of national recommendations. Finally, multinational recommendations were formulated and agreement among the participants and the potential impact on their clinical practice was assessed.

Results:

A total of 16 979 references was identified, of which 304 articles were included in the systematic reviews. Ten multinational key recommendations on the use of methotrexate were formulated. Nine recommendations were specific for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including the work-up before initiating methotrexate, optimal dosage and route, use of folic acid, monitoring, management of hepatotoxicity, long-term safety, mono versus combination therapy and management in the perioperative period and before/during pregnancy. One recommendation concerned methotrexate as a steroid-sparing agent in other rheumatic diseases.

Conclusions:

Ten recommendations for the use of methotrexate in daily clinical practice focussed on RA were developed, which are evidence based and supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, enhancing their validity and practical use.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs other than methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To outline recent research findings with nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative arthritis spanning systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, observational clinical practice trials and assessments of adverse effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Systematic reviews show no important differences between methotrexate, leflunomide and sulfasalazine monotherapies; early disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy reduces erosive progression. Observational studies show that nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are widely prescribed; their usage has increased in the biologic era. A systemic review also showed patients who failed monotherapy benefited from disease-modifying antirheumatic drug combinations without excess toxicity. Randomized controlled trials of intensive initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drug combinations showed they reduce synovitis and erosive damage, especially when used with steroids. The subsequent sequence of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the value of changing disease-modifying antirheumatic drug monotherapies or stepping-up to combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are, however, unresolved. The adverse risks of nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been evaluated, including infections and lung disease; patient-related risks seem more important than drug-related risks, though several disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs increase both types of adverse reactions. Two limitations of nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are reduced impact on comorbidities like cardiovascular disease and reduced patient and clinician preferences for these treatments.

SUMMARY

Nonmethotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are effective, relatively well tolerated and widely used. Their role in intensive treatment strategies in early rheumatoid arthritis appears of crucial importance.

Update on the use of analgesics versus nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatic disorders: risks and benefits

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In the last 2 years, there have been numerous publications on the safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors. An evaluation of the potential risks and benefits of other analgesics has also followed. In this time of greater analysis of analgesic use, this review seeks to present the most recent evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

Concerns of potential hepatotoxicity of therapeutic doses of paracetamol have been highlighted in the last 18 months. The efficacy and risks of long-term opioid use have also been reevaluated. The debate over nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor safety continues.

SUMMARY

Recent evidence has prompted a reassessment of the safety of paracetamol in certain groups of patients. Further clarification on the risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and cyclo-oxygenase-2 therapy for individuals is covered. Their use, increased cardiovascular risk and long-term implications need to be evaluated.

Innovative treatment strategies for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present review provides an update on novel treatment strategies striving for remission in patients with recent onset of rheumatoid arthritis.

RECENT FINDINGS

As early treatment is crucial to achieve optimal results, identifying patients with rheumatoid arthritis early is imperative to achieve clinical remission. Patients with early arthritis who will progress to rheumatoid arthritis can be identified, and treating these patients can postpone the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and retard the progression of structural damage. The best way to achieve remission is by adjusting treatments at regular intervals using predetermined response criteria. Specific treatments to rapidly induce remission include disease modifying antirheumatic drugs combinations, especially combined with glucocorticoids or tumor necrosis factor antagonists. The prediction of joint damage progression, or the response to specific drugs is not yet accurately possible. The early institution of tumor necrosis factor antagonists followed by discontinuation leads to sustained clinical benefit.

SUMMARY

Early treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis with strategies aiming at remission results in the best outcomes. Until the prediction of a severe disease course and treatment response becomes possible, a promising strategy would be to rapidly induce remission using an effective combination of drugs followed by tapering and discontinuation. Tumor necrosis factor antagonists have proven to be highly effective in this approach.

Tight control in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: efficacy and feasibility

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy and feasibility of the new concept of tight control in randomised trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tight control is a treatment strategy tailored to the individual patient with RA, which aims to achieve a predefined level of low disease activity or remission within a certain period of time.

METHODS

The literature database PubMed was searched and yielded four trials: the FIN-RACo trial, the TICORA study, the BeSt study and the CAMERA study.

RESULTS

Tight control resulted in greater improvement and a higher percentage of patients meeting the preset aim of low disease activity or remission when compared to the control intervention. In the FIN-RACo trial, analysing the subset of patients completing the study, 68% in the tight control group achieved remission (DAS28<2.6) verus 41% in the contrast group [corrected] In the TICORA study, 65% of patients in the tight control group versus 16% of the contrast group achieved remission, based on DAS<1.6 (p<0.0001). In the CAMERA study, 50% of patients in the tight control group using a computer decision model achieved remission, versus 37% in the contrast group (p = 0.029). The BeSt study consisted of only tight control groups aimed at a DAS<1.6; remission was achieved in 38-46% of patients. This is higher than the range of remission in earlier trials of 13-36%.

CONCLUSION

Tight control aiming for low disease activity or even better still, remission, seems a promising option in treating patients with RA in clinical trials and probably also in daily practice.

Combination therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: methotrexate and sulfasalazine together or with other DMARDs

Early aggressive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is associated with improved disease control, slower radiological progression and improved functional outcomes. Tumor necrosis factor blocking therapy is effective but there remain concerns about long-term risks. Combining disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is a widely used therapeutic alternative; however, there is uncertainty surrounding the most effective regimen. A popular combination is methotrexate plus sulfasalazine, but each of these DMARDs can also be used in combination with other DMARDs and in triple therapy regimens. However, wide variations in study size, design, steroid usage and approaches to combination therapy have made it difficult to form firm conclusions regarding their efficacy. Generally, combination therapy is well tolerated and associated with no significant increase in the rate of adverse events compared with monotherapy. Methotrexate-sulfasalazine, methotrexate-chloroquine, methotrexate-cyclosporin, methotrexate-leflunomide, methotrexate-intramuscular-gold and methotrexate-doxycycline are effective combination regimens. Triple DMARD therapy is better than various DMARD monotherapy and dual therapy regimens. Methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine may have synergistic anti-inflammatory properties. Clinical trial evidence to support the use of other methotrexate and sulfasalazine combinations is often weak or lacking. Further investigation is required to determine the most effective regimen and approach to combination therapy.

Limited efficacy of conventional DMARDs after initial methotrexate failure in patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis treated according to the disease activity score

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of subsequent disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapies after initial methotrexate (MTX) failure in patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA), treated according to the DAS for 2 years.

METHODS

In groups 1 and 2 of the BeSt study, 244 RA patients were initially treated with MTX 15-25 mg/week. Patients who discontinued MTX because of insufficient clinical response (disease activity score, DAS >2.4) or toxicity were classified as "MTX failures." In group 1, these patients switched to sulfasalazine (SSA), then leflunomide and finally to MTX + infliximab (IFX). In group 2, "MTX failures" added SSA to MTX, then hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), then prednisone, and eventually switched to MTX + IFX. "MTX successes" were patients who achieved a DAS </=2.4 after 2 years while still on MTX monotherapy. Total Sharp/van der Heijde score (TSS) progression from 0-2 years was assessed in "MTX failures" versus "MTX successes."

RESULTS

After 2 years, 162/244 patients (66%) had discontinued MTX because of insufficient response or toxicity. Of these, 78% also failed on SSA (adding or switching), 87% subsequently failed on leflunomide (in group 1), and 64% on MTX + SSA + HCQ (in group 2). 34 of 48 patients (71%) in groups 1 and 2 were successfully treated with MTX + IFX. After 2 years, regardless of the "success" on subsequent DMARDs, " MTX failures" had a median TSS progression of 3 units (mean 9) versus 1 unit (mean 3) in "MTX successes" (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

After failure on initial MTX, treatment with subsequent conventional DMARDs is unlikely to result in a DAS </=2.4 and allows progression of joint damage.